All losses are not alike: Real versus accounting-driven reported losses

Abstract

Abstract We examine the value relevance of accounting-driven losses that result from the immediate expensing of firms’ internally generated intangible investments versus losses occurring irrespective of intangible investments. Contrary to the long-held view that losses are less relevant than profits for valuation, we find that once the accounting bias of intangibles-expensing is undone, earnings of firms reporting intangibles-driven losses are as informative as earnings of profitable firms. Furthermore, contrary to the view that persistent losses decrease earnings relevance, our evidence shows no decrease in the relevance of earnings for firms reporting persistent intangibles-driven losses. We also find that firms reporting intangibles-driven losses subsequently outperform other loss firms and even profitable firms in value creation from investments in technological innovation and human capital. Our evidence further shows that firms reporting intangibles-driven losses have stronger future performance than other firms. Taken together, the results of this study demonstrate the fundamental differences between losses driven by the immediate expensing of internally generated intangible investments and losses reflecting genuine business performance shortfalls. Standard accounting performance measures, however, do not properly reflect these operational differences and their implications.