ULUSLARARASI FİNANSAL RAPORLAMA STANDARTLARINA GÖRE MADDİ OLMAYAN DURAN VARLIKLARIN DEĞER İLGİLİLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ: BORSA İSTANBUL’DAN BULGULAR

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 40, 364 - 377, 28.12.2017

Ahmet Özcan

Öz

Günümüzün iş
dünyasında, maddi olmayan duran varlıklar işletmelerin başarısında önemli rol
oynamaktadır. IAS 38 maddi olmayan duran varlıklar ile ilgili olan muhasebe
bilgilerinin yatırımcılar açısından daha faydalı olması amacıyla
yayınlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Uluslararası Finansal Raporlama Standartlarının maddi
olmayan duran varlıkların değer ilgililiği üzerindeki etkisi 108 firmanın 2000-2016
yılları arasındaki muhasebe verileri kullanılarak analiz edilmektedir. Panel
veri analizinin sonucunda, maddi olmayan duran varlıklar ile şirketlerin hisse
senedi fiyatları arasında önemli bir ilişki olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca,
sonuçlar, Uluslararası Finansal Raporlama Standartlarının maddi olmayan duran
varlıkların değer ilgililiğini önemli bir oranda arttırdığını ortaya
koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, Uluslararası Finansal Raporlama Standartlarının
öncesinde ve sonrasında maddi olmayan duran varlıkların değer ilgililiğini
analiz ederek literatüre katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Değer ilgililiği, maddi olmayan duran varlıklar, Uluslararası Finansal Raporlama Standartları

ANALYSIS OF VALUE RELEVANCE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS UNDER INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARDS: EVIDENCE FROM BORSA ISTANBUL

Öz

In
the current business climate, intangible
assets play a vital role in business success. IAS 38 Intangible Assets was
published to enhance the usefulness of financial information about intangible
assets from an investor perspective. This paper analyzes intangible assets’
value relevance in the pre and post International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS) periods in Turkey by using a sample that includes 108 firms over the
period 2000 to 2016. The results of panel data analysis show that the amount of
intangible assets is significantly associated with the stock price. The results
also indicate that value relevance of intangible assets of Turkish
manufacturing firms is significantly higher under IFRS than Turkish GAAP. This
study aims to fill a gap by specifically analyzing the value relevance of
intangible assets reported by Turkish listed firms over the pre and post IFRS
period, since the most of previous research studies focus on either one of the
two periods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

value relevance, intangible assets, international financial reporting standards

Kaynakça

• References Aboody, D., and Lev, B. (1998). The value relevance of intangibles: The case of software capitalization. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 161-191.
• Aharony, J., Barniv, R., and Falk, H. (2010). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on equity valuation of accounting numbers for security investors in the EU. European Accounting Review, 19(3), 535-578.
• Ahmed, K., and Falk, H. (2006). The value relevance of management’s research and development reporting choice: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 231-264.
• Alford, A., Jones, J., Leftwich, R., and Zmijewski, M. (1993). The relative informativeness of accounting disclosures in different countries. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 183-223.
• Barth, M. E., Beaver, W. H., and Landsman, W. R. (2001). The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1), 77-104.
• Barth, M. E., and Clinch, G. (2009). Scale Effects in Capital Markets‐Based Accounting Research. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 36(3‐4), 253-288.
• Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., and Lang, M. H. (2008). International accounting standards and accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 467-498.
• Baum, C.F. (2006). An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata, Stata Press, Texas, First Edition
• Brahim, H. B., and Arab, M. B. (2012). The relevance of the information about intangibles: Some determinants. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 2(1), 219-244.
• Bublitz, B., and Ettredge, M. (1989). The information in discretionary outlays: Advertising, research, and development. Accounting Review, 64 (1), 108-124.
• Dahmash, F. N., Durand, R. B., and Watson, J. (2009). The value relevance and reliability of reported goodwill and identifiable intangible assets. The British Accounting Review, 41(2), 120-137.
• Garanina T., and Pavlova Y. (2011, April). Intangible assets and value creation of a company: Russian and UK evidence. European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Nicosia, Cyprus.
• Gjerde, Ø., Knivsflå, K., and Saettem, F. (2008). The value-relevance of adopting IFRS: Evidence from 145 NGAAP restatements. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 17(2), 92-112.
• Godfrey, J., and Koh, P. S. (2001). The relevance to firm valuation of capitalising intangible assets in total and by category. Australian Accounting Review, 11(24), 39-48.
• Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46 (6), 1251-1271.
• Hirschey, M., Richardson, V. J., and Scholz, S. (2001). Value relevance of nonfinancial information: The case of patent data. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 17(3), 223-235.
• Holthausena, R.W., and Watts, R.L. (2009). The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31 (3), 3–75.
• Hung, M., and Subramanyam, K. R. (2007). Financial statement effects of adopting international accounting standards: the case of Germany. Review of Accounting Studies, 12(4), 623-657.
• Jennings, R., Robinson, J., Thompson, R. B., and Duvall, L. (1996). The relation between accounting goodwill numbers and equity values. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23(4), 513-533.
• Joos, P., and Lang, M. (1994). The effects of accounting diversity: Evidence from the European Union. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 141-168.
• Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Lev, B., and Sougiannis, T. (1996). The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of RandD. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(1), 107-138.
• Kothari, S. P., and Zimmerman, J. L. (1995). Price and return models. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20(2), 155-192.
• Martínez, J. A., Martínez, D. A., and Lin, H. (2014). The value relevance of accounting numbers under international financial reporting standards. Australian Accounting Review, 24(3), 237-254.
• Morricone, S., Oriani, R., and Sobrero, M. (2009). The value relevance of intangible assets and the mandatory adoption of IFRS. Available at SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1600725).
• Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 661-687.
• Oliveira, L., Rodrigues, L. L., and Craig, R. (2010). Intangible assets and value relevance: Evidence from the Portuguese stock exchange. The British Accounting Review, 42(4), 241-252.
• Paglietti, P. (2009). Investigating the effects of the EU mandatory adoption of IFRS on accounting quality: Evidence from Italy. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(12), 3-18.
• Palea, V. (2014). Are IFRS value-relevant for separate financial statements? Evidence from the Italian stock market. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 23(1), 1-17.
• Sahut, J. M., Boulerne, S., and Teulon, F. (2011). Do IFRS provide better information about intangibles in Europe?. Review of Accounting and Finance, 10(3), 267-290.
• Shah, S. Z. A., Liang, S., and Akbar, S. (2013). International financial reporting standards and the value relevance of RandD expenditures: Pre and post IFRS analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 158-169.
• Shahwan, Y. (2004). The Australian market perception of goodwill and identifiable intangibles. Journal of Applied Business Research, 20(4), 45-64.
• Sougiannis, T. (1994). The accounting based valuation of corporate RandD. Accounting Review, 69 (1), 44-68.
• Tsoligkas, F., and Tsalavoutas, I. (2011). Value relevance of RandD in the UK after IFRS mandatory implementation. Applied Financial Economics, 21(13), 957-967.
• Yan, X. and Su X.G. (2009). Linear Regression Analysis: Theory and Computing, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
• Yang, J., Brashear, T. G., and Asare, A. (2015). The value relevance of brand equity, intellectual capital and intellectual capital management capability. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(6), 543-559.