Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intangibles Accounting Regulations and the “Global Intangibles Economy”: Belief-Revision, Enforcement Theory and Financial Stability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complex Systems, Multi-Sided Incentives and Risk Perception in Companies

  • 368 Accesses

Abstract

Intangible Assets account for 60–75% of the market capitalization value in stock markets in most developed countries around the world (and similar percentages in stock markets in “2nd-world” countries). The relationship between Intangible assets and Sustainable Growth is discussed in: Corrado et al. (2012), UKCES (UK) (2011), Corrado et al. (2018), OECD (2013), Jona-Lasinio et al. (2016), McGrattan (2017), Corrado et al. (2009), Zhang (2017), Robbins (2016), Suriñach and Moreno (2011), Ahn et al. (December 2018), Haskel and Westlake (May 2018), Badia et al. (2019), Jorgenson et al. (2014), Zambon et al. (2019), Jona-Lasinio and Meliciani (2018), Marrocu et al. (2012), and Haskel and Westlake (2017). The concensus is that Intangible assets affect economic growth; and the inaccurate measurement of Intangible assets affects management decisions, business cycles and the formulation of economic policy. However, those foregoing articles and books don’t address the behavioral aspects of both Intangibles Assets and associated accounting regulations which can have macroeconomic effects. US GAAP and IFRS Goodwill and Intangibles accounting regulations (ASC 805—Business Combinations; ASC 350—Goodwill and Intangible Assets; IFRS 3R—Business Combinations; and IAS 38—accounting for Intangible Assets) are inefficient, don’t allow full recognition of actual goodwill/intangibles; and create potentially harmful psychological biases that have implications for group decisions (within firms), Financial Stability and risk perception.

This chapter contains excerpts from the author’s article cited as: Nwogugu, M. (2015). “Goodwill/Intangibles Rules and Earnings Management”. European Journal of Law Reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Khan and Lo (2018), Chen and Jorgensen (2018), Kwon (2005), and Marquardt and Zur (2015).

  2. 2.

    See Nan and Wen (2014).

  3. 3.

    See Andrews et al. (2017), Byrne and Callaghan (2014), Room (2011), Root (2013), Kuhlman and Mortveit (2014), LoPucki (1997), Melnik et al. (2013), Miklashevich (2003), Post and Eisen (2000), Ruhl and Ruhl (1996), Williams and Arrigo (2002), Young (1997), and Arthur (1999).

  4. 4.

    See Ballow, Thomas and Roos (Accenture) (2004). Noting that “………..Nearly sixty percent of the aggregate value of the US stock market is based on investor expectations of future growth. And because this future value tends to be concentrated in industries and companies that are built on intangible assets, it is critical to find better ways to recognize, report and manage these assets…………”. See Hulten (2008). https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/workingpapers/E-0029-08-WP.pdf. The conference Board—Economics Program Working Paper Series. Also see http://raw.rutgers.edu/docs/intangibles/Papers/Intangible%20Capital%20and%20the%20Market%20to%20Book%20ValuePuzzle.pdf. See Hassett and Shapiro (2012) (noting that “…………The value of the intangible assets – which includes intellectual capital plus economic competencies – in the U.S. economy totals an estimated $14.5 trillion in 2011…………The ten industries whose intellectual capital represents at least 50 percent of their market value – the ten most intellectual-capital intensive industries -- are media; telecommunications services; automobiles and components; household and personal products; food, beverages and tobacco; commercial and professional services; software and services; healthcare equipment and services; pharmaceuticals, biotech and life sciences; and consumer services………”). See Bond and Cummins (2000). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%202000/2000a_bpea_bond.PDF. See OCEAN TOMO 300® PATENT INDEX. Available at http://www.oceantomo.com/pdf/OceanTomo300_PatentIndex_Brochure_Web. (Noting that as of 2010, Intangible Assets accounted for about eighty percent of the stock market values of S&P 500 companies).

  5. 5.

    See Hand, J. (2003). See Nakamura (1999; 2010). See DeLong, J. (2002). This article states in part “………As was recently noted, “Without institutions to bring together people with resources and people with ideas, new ventures can be launched only by the narrow circle of people who have both.” Options are just such an institution, and an important one, and the proposals to treat them as expenses would meddle destructively with a complex financial and entrepreneurial ecosystem….”.

  6. 6.

    See Damodaran (September 2009).

  7. 7.

    See Bell et al. (2002).

  8. 8.

    See Nakamura (1999).

  9. 9.

    See Ernst and Young. (July 2010). “IRS Concedes Stock Option Issue in Veritas Following Ninth Circuit’s Opinion in Xilinx”. Available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ITA_26July2010/$FILE/ITA_IRS_concedes_stock_option.pdf; See Sullivan and Cromwell. (May 29, 2009). “Court Addresses Employee Stock Option Expenses for Transfer Pricing Purposes—Ninth Circuit Overturns Tax Court and Holds That Expenses Attributable to Employee Stock Options Are ‘Costs’ of Developing Intangibles for Transfer Pricing Purposes”. Available at http://www.sullcrom.com/files/Publication/1123f4bf-af4b-4d0b-a948-2e0cbf147a73/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/83790441-f801-4766-bfcc-2eabc306273e/SC_Publication_Court_Addresses_Employee_Stock_Option_Expenses_for_Transfer_Pricing_Purposes.pdf. See Xilinx, Inc. v. Commissioner; 2009 WL 1459501 (USA; 9th Circuit; 2009). See Sullivan and Cromwell. (March 24, 2010). “Court Addresses (Again) Employee Stock Option Expenses for Transfer Pricing Purposes—Ninth Circuit Overturns Tax Court and Holds That Expenses Attributable to Employee Stock Options Are “Costs” of Developing Intangibles for Transfer Pricing Purposes—Ninth Circuit Reverses Itself and Holds that the Arm’s-Length Standard Controls in Determining if Employee Stock Option Expenses Must Be Shared Among Related Parties Under Pre-2003 US Transfer Pricing Rules”. Available at http://www.sullcrom.com/files/Publication/68c25802-e2d4-483c-8662-102f0af7bdbf/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b88f2c64-3d86-44d5-998c-1484ea00283a/SC_Publication_Court_Addresses_Employee_Stock_Option_Expenses.pdf. See Xilinx, Inc. vs. Commissioner (2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5795 (March 22, 2010)). See O’Driscoll D. (November 1, 2005). “Allocation of Employee Stock Options to Cost-Sharing Agreement”. The Tax Adviser. See US Internal Revenues Service. (2008). “Cost Sharing Stock Based Compensation (UIL 482.11-13)”. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=180309,00.html.

  10. 10.

    See FASB. (2014). “Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Accounting for Goodwill—A Consensus of the Private Company Council”. http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1176163744355&acceptedDisclaimer=true.

  11. 11.

    See US SEC. (July 2012). “Work Plan for the Consideration of Incorporating International Financial Reporting Standards into the Financial Reporting System for U.S. Issuers—Final Staff Report”. Available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/globalaccountingstandards/ifrs-work-plan-final-report.pdf.

  12. 12.

    See FASB Staff Position 141(R)-1, “Accounting for Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed in a Business Combination That Arises from Contingencies” (April 1, 2009) (“FSP 141R-1”), available at http://www.fasb.org/pdf/fsp_fas141r-1.pdf. See http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Pages/FASBVotestoIssueNewGuidanceonKeyFinancialReportingTopics.aspx. See Morgan Lewis Bockius. (2009). “Loss Contingencies: Will Companies Enhance Disclosures in the Future?” http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/BF_LossContingencies_WhitePaper_Sept2009.pdf.

  13. 13.

    On the differences between US GAAP and IFRS accounting standards for goodwill/intangibles see:

  14. 14.

    See Mosca and Viscolani (2004), Rodov and Leliaert (2002), Lim and Dallimore (2004), and Tollington (2006).

  15. 15.

    See Kosaka (2004).

References

  • Abhayawansa, S., Aleksanyan, M., & Bahtsevanoglou, J. (2015). The Use of Intellectual Capital Information by Sell-Side Analysts in Company Valuation. Accounting & Business Research, 45, 279–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agoglia, C., Doupnik, T., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2011). Principles-Based Versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards: The Influence of Standard Precision and Audit Committee Strength on Financial Reporting Decisions. The Accounting Review, 86(3), 747–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, J., Duval, R., & Sever, C. (2018, December). Macroeconomic Policy, Product Market Competition, and Growth: The Intangible Investment Channel. Working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ai, H., & Kiku, D. (2013). Growth to Value: Option Exercise and the Cross Section of Equity Returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 107(2), 325–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Shammari, B., Brown, P., & Tarca, A. (2008). An Investigation of Compliance with International Accounting Standards by Listed Companies in the Gulf Cooperation Council Member States. The International Journal of Accounting, 43(4), 425–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler, R., & Grubert, H. (2010, December). Formula Apportionment: Is It Better Than the Current System and Are There Better Alternatives? National Tax Journal, 63(4), 1145–1184. ftp://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/2011-23.pdf.

  • An, H., & Zhang, T. (2013). Stock Price Synchronicity, Crash Risk, and Institutional Investors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 21, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrighetto, G., & Conte, R. (2012). Cognitive Dynamics of Norm Compliance: From Norm Adoption to Flexible Automated Conformity. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(4), 359–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antunes, A., Cavalcanti, T., & Villamil, A. (2008). The Effect of Financial Repression and Enforcement on Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 55(2), 278–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the Economy. Science, 284, 107–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascioglu, A., Hegde, S. P., Krishnan, G., & McDermott, J. B. (2012). Earnings Management and Market Liquidity. Review of Quant Finance & Accounting, 38, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Taxation Office (Australian Government). (2011, March). International Transfer Pricing—Marketing Intangibles. http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.aspx?doc=/content/68495.htm.

  • Avraham, R., & Liu, Z. (2012). Private Information and the Option to Not Sue: A Reevaluation of Contract Remedies. Journal of Economics & Organization, 28(1), 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axtle-Ortiz, M. A. (2013). Perceiving the Value of Intangible Assets in Context. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 417–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, B., Lefanowicz, C., & Robinson, J. (2002). Do Firms Purchase the Pooling Method? Review of Accounting Studies, 7, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badia, F., Dicuonzo, G., et al. (2019). Integrated Reporting in Action: Mobilizing Intellectual Capital to Improve Management and Governance Practices. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(2), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., & Mezzetti, C. (2001). Prosecutorial Resources, Plea Bargaining, and the Decision to Go to Trial. Journal of Economics & Organization, 17(1), 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balke, T., De Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2013). I-ABM: Combining Institutional Frameworks and Agent-Based Modeling for the Design of Enforcement Policies. Artificial Intelligence & Law, 21(4), 371–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballow, J., Thomas R., & Roos, G. (Accenture) (2004). Future Value: The $7 Trillion Challenge. http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/manage.pdf.

  • Banegil, P., & Galvan, R. (2007). Intangible Measurement Guidelines: A Comparative Study in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 92–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Gill, O. (2006). The Evolution and Persistence of Optimism in Litigation. Journal of Economics & Organization, 22(2), 490–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, T. (2011). Obtaining a Fair Arbitration Outcome. Law, Probability and Risk, 10(2), 123–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yosef, S., & Prencipe, A. (2013). The Impact of Corporate Governance and Earnings Management on Stock Market Liquidity in a Highly Concentrated Ownership Capital Market. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 28(3), 292–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, A., & Weber, J. (2006). Accounting Discretion in Fair Value Estimates: An Examination of SFAS 142 Goodwill Impairments. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 257–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, J. (2006). Is Full Compliance Possible?: Conditions for Shirking with Imperfect Monitoring and Continuous Action Spaces. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18, 347–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Landsman, W., Miller, B., & Yeh, S. (2002). The Valuation Implications of Employee Stock Option Accounting for Profitable Computer Software Firms. The Accounting Review, 77(4), 971–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belo, F., Gala, V., et al. (2019). Decomposing Firm Value. Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3104993 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3104993.

  • Belo, F., Li, J., et. al. (2017). Labor-Force Heterogeneity and Asset Prices: The Importance of Skilled Labor. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(10), 3669–3709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, J.B., Stanton, R., & Zechner, J. (2010). Human Capital, Bankruptcy, and Capital Structure. The Journal of Finance, 65(3), 891–926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berzkalne, I., & Zelgalve, E. (2013). Innovation and Company Value: Evidence from the Baltic Countries. Regional Formation and Innovation Studies, 11(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bex, F., & Walton, D. (2012). Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation: Three Case Studies. Law, Probability and Risk, 11(2–3), 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff, S., Vladova, G., & Jeschke, S. (2011). Measuring Intellectual Capital. In Enabling Innovation: Innovative Capability—German and International Views. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, F. (1976). Studies of Stock Price Volatility Changes. Proceedings of the Business and Economics Section of the American Statistical Association, 177–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, R., & Lekhi, R. (2009). Accounting for Intangibles: Financial Reporting and Value Creation în the Knowledge Economy—A Research Report for the Work Foundation’s Knowledge Economy Programme. The Work Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodenhausen, G., Macrae, C., & Hugenberg, K. (2003). Social Cognition. In I. Weiner, T. Million, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 5). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S., Cummins, J. G., et al. (2000). The Stock Market and Investment in the New Economy: Some Tangible Facts and Intangible Fictions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 61–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N. (2003). Intellectual Capital Disclosure in Canadian Corporations. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 7(1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, C., & Hoffman, D. (2013). Litigating Toward Settlement. Journal of Law, Economic & Organization, 29(4), 898–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brännström, D., & Giuliani, M. (2009). Intellectual Capital and IFRS3: A New Disclosure Opportunity. Journal in Knowledge Management, 7(1), 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, G., Haynes, C., Lewis, T., & Taylor, M. (2015). Principles-Based vs. Rules-Based Accounting Standards: The Effects of Auditee Proposed Accounting Treatment and Regulatory Enforcement on Auditor Judgments and Confidence. Research in Accounting Regulation, 27(1), 45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Preiato, J., & Tarca, A. (2014). Measuring Country Differences in Enforcement of Accounting Standards: An Audit and Enforcement Proxy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 41(1/2), 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J., & Tan, Y. (2011). Value-Based Argumentation for Justifying Compliance. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(2–3), 149–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, R., & Pindyck, R. (1996). Uncertainty, Investment and Industry Evolution. International Economic Review, 37(3), 641–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, M. D., Denis, D. J., & Denis, D. K. (2011). Earnouts: A Study of Financial Contracting in Acquisition Agreements. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(2011), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., & Hentschel, L. (1992). No News Is Good News: An Asymmetric Model of Changing Volatility in Stock Returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 31(3), 281–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas, E. (2012). Globalization of Securities Enforcement: A Shift Toward Enhanced Regulatory Intensity in Brazil’s Capital Market? Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 37(3), 803–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, J. P., & Matthews, P. H. (2012). Norm Enforcement: Anger, Indignation or Reciprocity. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10, 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cenciarelli, V., Greco, G., & Allegrini, M. (2018). Does Intellectual Capital Help Predict Bankruptcy? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 321–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, L., Lakonishok, J., & Sougiannis, T. (2001). The Stock Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures. The Journal of Finance, 56(6), 2431–2456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, B. (2013). Incommensurability, Proportionality, and Defeasibility. Law, Probability & Risk, 12(3–4), 259–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau, K., Leung, A., Yiu, C., & Wong, S. (2003). Estimating the Value of Enhancement Effects of Refurbishment. Facilities, 21(1/2), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Jiang, D., et al. (2011). Selective Enforcement of Regulation. China Journal of Accounting Research, 4(1–2), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., & Jorgensen, B. (2018). Market Exit Through Divestment—The Effect of Accounting Bias on Competition. Management Science, 64(1), 1–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Kohlbeck, M., & Warfield, T. (2008). Timeliness of Impairment Recognition: Evidence from the Initial Adoption of SFAS 142. Advances in Accounting, 24(1), 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K., & Wang, J. (2007). Fee-Shifting Rules in Litigation with Contingency Fees. Journal of Law, Economic & Organization, 23(3), 519–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring Intellectual Capital: A New Model and Empirical Study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 105–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. (2007). Do the Merits Matter Less After the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act? Journal of Economics & Organization, 23(3), 598–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. J., & Pritchard, A. C. (2012). The Supreme Court’s Impact on Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Assessment of Tellabs. Journal of Economics & Organization, 28(4), 850–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopard, B., Cortade, T., & Langlais, E. (2010). Trial and Settlement Negotiations Between Asymmetrically Skilled Parties. International Review of Law & Economics, 30(1), 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2013). Mandatory IFRS Reporting and Changes in Enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churyk, N. (2005). Reporting Goodwill: Are The New Accounting Standards Consistent with Market Valuations? Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1353–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, K., & Ormrod, P. (1994). The Economic Circumstances Surrounding the Decision to Capitalize Brands—A Comment. British Journal of Management, 5, 303–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffee, J. (2007). Law and the Market: The Impact of Enforcement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156(2), 229–256. https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume156/issue2/Coffee156U.Pa.L.Rev.229%282007%29.pdf.

  • Comiskey, E., & Mulford, C. (2008). Negative Goodwill: Issues of Financial Reporting and Analysis Under Current and Proposed Guidelines. Journal of Applied Research in Accounting and Finance (JARAF), 3(1), 33–42. Available at http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/19231/1/fal_ga_tech_neg_goodwill_2007.pdf.

  • Cornell, B. (1990). The Incentive to Sue: An Option-Pricing Approach. The Journal of Legal Studies, 19, 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, C., Haskel, J., et al. (2012). Intangible Capital and Growth in Advanced Economies: Measurement Methods and Comparative Results (IZA DP No. 6733). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. http://repec.iza.org/dp6733.pdf.

  • Corrado, C., Haskel, J., et al. (2018). Intangible Investment in the EU and US Before and Since the Great Recession and its Contribution to Productivity Growth. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy & Development, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, C., & Hulten, C. (2010). How do you Measure a Technological Revolution? American Economic Review, 100(2), 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2006, April). Intangible Capital and Economic Growth. US Federal Reserve Board; Finance and Economics Discussion Series: 2006–24. Available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/feds/2006/200624/index.html.

  • Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible Capital and US Economic Growth. Review of Income and Wealth, 55, 661–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuny, C., & Talmore, E. (2007). A Theory of Private Equity Turnarounds. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 629–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damodaran A. (2009, September). Valuing Companies with Intangible Assets. Working Paper, NYU Stern School of Business, New York, USA. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/papers/intangibles.pdf.

  • Daughety, A., & Reinganum, J. (2000). On the Economics of Trials: Adversarial Process, Evidence, and Equilibrium Bias. Journal Of Economics & Organization, 16(2), 365–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daughety, A., & Reinganum, J. (2010). Population-Based Liability Determination, Mass Torts, and the Incentives for Suit, Settlement, and Trial. Journal of Economics & Organization, 26(3), 460–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Wruck, K. (2002). Asset Liquidity, Debt Covenants and Managerial Discretion in Financial Distress: The Collapse of L.A. Gear. Journal of Financial Economics, 64, 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. (2006). Motivated Information Processing, Strategic Choice and the Quality of Negotiated Agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 927–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLong, J. (2002). The Stock Options Controversy and the New Economy. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • De MEsquita, E., & Stephenson, M. (2006). Legal Institutions and Informal Networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18, 40–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demolombe, R. (2011). Relationships Between Obligations and Actions in the Context of Institutional Agents, Human Agents or Software Agents. Artificial Intelligence & Law, 19(2–3), 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denant-Boemont, L., Masclet, D., & Noussair, C. (2007). Punishment, Counter-Punishment and Sanction Enforcement in a Social Dilemma Experiment. Economic Theory, 33, 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, C., & Savickas, R. (2010). On the Causes of Volatility Effects of Conglomerate Breakups. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16, 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detzen, D., & Zuelch, H. (2012). Executive Compensation and Goodwill Recognition Under IFRS: Evidence from European Mergers. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 21(2), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dischinger, M., & Riedel, N. (2011). Corporate Taxes and the Location of Intangible Assets Within Multinational Firms. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominiak, P., Mercik, J., & Szymańska, A. (2013). Comparative Analysis of Methods of Measuring Company’s Intellectual Capital. Working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duangploy, O., Shelton, M., & Omer, K. (2005). The Value Relevance of Goodwill Impairment Loss. Bank Accounting & Finance, 18(5), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunse, N. A., Hutchison, N., & Goodacre, A. (2004). Trade-Related Valuations and the Treatment of Goodwill. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 22(3), 236–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dženopoljac, V., Janoševic, S., & Bontis, N. (2016). Intellectual Capital and Financial Performance in the Serbian ICT Industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisfeldt, A., & Papanikolaou, D. (2013). Organization Capital and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns. The Journal of Finance, 68(4), 1365–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eng, L., & Lin, Y. (2012). Accounting Quality, Earnings Management and Cross-Listings: Evidence from China. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets, 15, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falato, A., Kadyrzhanova, D., & Sim, J. (2014). Rising Intangible Capital, Shrinking Debt Capacity, and the U.S. Corporate Savings Glut (Working Paper). Federal Reserve Board of Governors, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmera, A., & Pecorino, P. (2002). Pretrial Bargaining with Self-Serving Bias and Asymmetric Information. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(2), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FASB (USA) (2014, January). Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350)—Accounting for Goodwill—A Consensus of the Private Company Council. FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 214-02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2002). Strong Reciprocity, Human Cooperation, and the Enforcement of Social Norms. Human Nature, 13(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellner, G., Sausgruber, R., & Traxler, C. (2013). Testing Enforcement Strategies in the Field: Threat, Moral Appeal and Social Information. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3, 634–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Files, R. (2012). SEC Enforcement: Does Forthright Disclosure and Cooperation Really Matter? Journal of Accounting & Economics, 53, 353–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, N. (2006). Intangible Assets and Creative Impairment—An Analysis of Current Disclosure Practices by Top Australian Firms. Journal of Law and Financial Management, 5(2), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotras, M. H., & Touradj Beigi, A. (2009). Patterns of Measuring Intellectual Capital with a Glimpse at Services Section. Tadbir Monthly Journal, 203, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, W., Hasan, I., & Li, L. (2014). Abnormal Real Operations, Real Earnings Management, and Subsequent Crashes in Stock Prices. Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers #19; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, R., Seethamraju, C., & Zach, T. (2008). GAAP Goodwill and Debt Contracting Efficiency: Evidence from Net Worth Covenants. Review of Accounting Studies, 13(1), 87–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, E., & Wickelgren, A. L. (2010). Chilling, Settlement, and the Accuracy of the Legal Process. Journal of Economics & Organization, 26(1), 144–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D., & Wittman, D. (2007). Litigation with Symmetric Bargaining and Two-Sided Incomplete Information. Journal of Law, Economic & Organization, 23(1), 98–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Meca, E., & Martinez, I. (2007). The Use of Intellectual Capital Information in Investment Decisions: An Empirical Study Using Analyst Reports. The International Journal of Accounting, 42(1), 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garoupa, N. (1997). The Theory of Optimal Law Enforcement. Journal of Economic Surveys, 11, 267–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastwirth, J. (2011). Case Comment: The Need for Careful Analysis of the Statistical Summary in the Response to the Complaint in the SEC v. Goldman Sachs Case. Law, Probability & Risk, 10, 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins, M., McCracken, S., & Salterio, S. (2008). Auditor-Client Relationships and Roles in Negotiating Financial Reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4/5), 362–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaum, M., Schmidt, P., Street, D. L., & Vogel, S. (2013). Compliance with IFRS 3- and IAS 36-required disclosures across 17 European countries: company- and country-level Determinants. Accounting and Business Research, 43(3), 163–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, J., & Ahmed, K. (2006). Longitudinal Value Relevance of Earnings and Intangible Assets: Evidence from Australian Firms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 15(1), 72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourio, F., & Rudanko, L. (2014). Customer Capital. The Review of Economic Studies, 81(3), 1102–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubert, H. (2003). Intangible Income, Intercompany Transactions, Income Shifting, and the Choice of Location. National Tax Journal, 56(1), 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Z., & Hao, X. (2011). Wealth Effects of the Creditor in Mergers: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies. In D. D. Wu (Ed.), Quantitative Financial Risk Management, Computational Risk Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19339-2_16, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, S., Hotchkiss, E. S., & Song, W. (2011a). Do Buyouts (Still) Create Value? The Journal of Finance, 66(2), 479–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, W., Wang, F., & Wu, H. (2011b). Financial Leverage and Market Volatility with Diverse Beliefs. Economic Theory, 47(2–3), 337–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guojonsdottir, G., Kristjansson, M., & Olafsson, O. (2011). Immediate Surge in Female Visits to the Cardiac Emergency Department Following the Economic Collapse in Iceland: An Observational Study. Emergency Medicine Journal, 29, 694–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, E. (2004). The Appearance of Impairment: Verbelen and Goodwill-Financed Mergers. Journal of Economic Issues, 38(2), 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, J. (2003). Increasing Returns-to-Scale of Intangibles. In J. R. M. Hand & B. Lev (Eds.), Intangible Assets: Values, Measures, and Risks. Oxford: Oxford Management Readers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, J., & Lev, B., eds. (2003). Intangible Assets: Values, Measures and Risks. Oxford Management Readers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskel, J., & Westlake, S. (2017). Capitalism without Capital the Rise of the Intangible Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskel, J., & Westlake, S. (2018, May). Productivity and Secular Stagnation in the Intangible Economy. VOX. https://voxeu.org/article/productivity-and-secular-stagnation-intangible-economy.

  • Hassett, K., & Shapiro, R. (2012). What Ideas Are Worth: The Value of Intellectual Capital And Intangible Assets in the American Economy. Available at http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Value_of_Intellectual_Capital_in_American_Economy.pdf.

  • Hayn, C., & Hughes, P. (2006). Leading Indicators of Goodwill Impairment. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 21(3), 223–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, J., Gielen, F., & Barros, A. (2004, September). Implementation Of International Accounting and Auditing Standards—Lessons Learned from the World Bank’s Accounting and Auditing ROSC Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing, D. & Johansson, A. (2010a). Evolutionary Dynamics of Populations with Conflicting Interactions: Classification and Analytical Treatment Considering Asymmetry and Power. Physical Review E, 81, 016112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing, D., & Johansson, A. (2010b). Cooperation, Norms, and Revolutions: A Unified Game-Theoretical Approach. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e12530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing, D., Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., & Szabó, G. (2010a). Defector-Accelerated Cooperativeness and Punishment in Public Goods Games with Mutations. Physical Review E, 81(5), 057104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing, D., Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., & Szabó, G. (2010b). Punish, but Not Too Hard: How Costly Punishment Spreads in the Spatial Public Goods Game. New Journal of Physics, 12, 083005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellman, N., Andersson, P., & Froberg, E. (2016). The Impact of IFRS Goodwill Reporting on Financial Analysts’ Equity Valuation Judgments: Some Experimental Evidence. Accounting & Finance, 56(1), 113–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, S., & Shaw, W. (2003). Is the Selection of the Amortization Period for Goodwill a Strategic Choice? Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20(4), 315–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, S., Shaw, W., & Stock, T. (2011). The Amount and Timing of Goodwill Write-Offs and Revaluations: Evidence from U.S. and U.K. Firms. Review of Quantitative Finance & Accounting, 23(2), 99–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2001). Why People Punish Defectors: Weak Conformist Transmission Can Stabilize Costly Enforcement of Norms in Cooperative Dilemmas. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 208, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes, A., Rickman, N., & Tzavara, D. (2004). Legal Expenses Insurance, Risk Aversion and Litigation. International Review of Law & Economics, 24, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbert, A., Daigler, R., & Dupoyet, B. (2008). A Behavioral Explanation for the Negative Assymetric Return-Volatility Relation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32, 2254–2266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. (2002). Information Content of Accounting Goodwill Numbers. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21(3), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölzl, W. (2005). Tangible and Intangible Sunk Costs and the Entry and Exit of Firms in a Small Open Economy: The Case of Austria, 37(21), 2429–2443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, O. (2003). Disclosure Practices, Enforcement of Accounting Standards, and Analysts’ Forecast Accuracy: An International Study. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(2), 235–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howson, N. C. (2012). Enforcement Without Foundation? Insider Trading and China’s Administrative Law Crisis. American Journal of Comparative Law, 60(4), 955–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, L. T., & Jang, S. C. (2008). Advertising Expenditure, Intangible Value and Risk: A Study of Restaurant Companies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 259–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huefner, R. J., & Largay III, J. A. (2004). The Effect of the New Goodwill Accounting Rule on Financial Statements. A Publication of the New York State Society of CPAs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, C. (2008). Intangible Capital and the “Market to Book Value” Puzzle. The conference Board—Economics Program Working Paper Series. https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/workingpapers/E-0029-08-WP.pdf.

  • Hutton, A., Marcus, A., & Tehranian, H. (2009). Opaque Financial Reports, R Square, and Crash Risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylton, K. (2002). An Assymetric-Information Model of Litigation. International Review of Law & Economics, 22, 153–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylton, K. (2008). When Should a Case Be Dismissed? The Economics of Pleading and Summary Judgment Standards. Supreme Court Economic Review, 16, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylton, K. N., & Lin, H. (2009). Trial Selection Theory and Evidence: A Review. In C. Sanchirico (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics: Procedural Law and Economics (Vol. X). Edward Elgar; Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-27. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407557.

  • Iazzolino, G., & Laise, D. (2013). Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC). A Methodological and Critical Review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(4), 547–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, H., & Roe, M. (2009). Public and Private enforcement of Securities Laws: Resource Based Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, K., Hofman-Bang, P., & Nordby, R. (2001). The IC Rating™ Model by Intellectual Capital Sweden. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraman, S. (2012). The Effect of Enforcement on Timely Loss Recognition: Evidence from Insider Trading Laws. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 53, 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeny-Cazavan, A., & Stolowy, H. (2001). International Accounting Disharmony: The Case of Intangibles. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(4), 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jona-Lasinio, C., Manzocchi, S., & Meliciani, V. (2016). Intangible Assets and Participation in Global Value Chains: An Analysis on a Sample of European Countries. Rivista di Politica Economica, 7(9), 65–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jona-Lasinio, C., & Meliciani, V. (2018). Productivity Growth and International Competitiveness: Does Intangible Capital Matter? Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, 53(2), 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. (2011). Does the Capitalization of Intangible Assets Increase the Predictability of Corporate Failure? Accounting Horizons, 25(1), 41–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones Day (USA). (2016, February). SEC Enforcement in Financial Reporting and Disclosures—2015 Update. http://www.jonesday.com/sec-enforcement-in-financial-reporting-and-disclosures2015-update-02-23-2016/.

  • Jordan, C., Clark, S., & Vann, C. (2008). Goodwill Impairment to Effect Earnings Management During SFAS 142’s Year of Adoption and Later. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5(1), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D., Landefeld, J., & Schreyer, P. (Eds.). (2014). Measuring Economic Sustainability and Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurczak, J. (2008). Intellectual Capital Measurement Methods. Economics and Organization of Enterprise, 1(1), 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacsuk, Z. (2011). The Mathematics of Patent Claim Analysis. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(4), 263–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992, January/February). The Balanced Scorecard—Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, pp. 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, S., & Rajgopal, S. (2011). Do the SEC’s Enforcement Preferences Affect Corporate Misconduct? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(3), 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketz, E. (2004). Negative Goodwill: An M&A “Fix” That Doesn’t Work”. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 16(2), 47–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, U., & Lo, A. (2018). Bank Lending Standards and Borrower Accounting Conservatism. Management Science, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. (2014). Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information Acquisition. Journal of Economics & Organization, 30(4), 767–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, L. (2011a). Corporate Tax Avoidance and Stock Price Crash Risk: Firm-Level Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 100, 639–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, L. (2011b). CFOs Versus CEOs: Equity Incentives and Crashes. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 713–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. B., & Zhang, L. (2013). Accounting Conservatism and Stock Price Crash Risk: Firm-Level Evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22, 759–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. B., & Zhang, L. (2014). Financial Reporting Opacity and Expected Crash Risk: Evidence from Implied Volatility Smirks. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(3), 851–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klement, A., & Neeman, Z. (2005). Against Compromise: A Mechanism Design Approach. Journal of Economics & Organization, 21(2), 285–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosaka, H. (2004). Japanese Managerial Behavior In Strategic Planning Case Analyses in Global Business Contexts. Journal of Business Research, 57, 291–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, S., Leone, A., & Wasley, C. (2005). Performance Matched Discretionary Accrual Measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), 163–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J., Marinelli, E., Iammarino, S., & Diez, J. (2011). Intangible Assets as Drivers of Innovation: Empirical Evidence on Multinational Enterprises in German and Uk Regional Systems of Innovation. Technovation, 31(9), 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlman, C., & Mortveit, H. (2014). Attractor Stability in Non-uniform Boolean Networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 559, 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, Y. (2005). Accounting Conservatism and Managerial Incentives. Management Science, 51(11), 1593–1732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lander, H., & Reinstein, A. (2003). Models to Measure Goodwill Impairment. International Advances in Economic Research, 9(3), 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M., & Wambach, A. (2013). The Fog of Fraud—Mitigating Fraud by Strategic Ambiguity. Games & Economic Behavior, 8(1), 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M., & Minzner, M. (2014). For-profit Public Enforcement. Harvard Law Review, 127, 854–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leshem, S., & Tabbach, A. (2012). Commitment Versus Flexibility in Enforcement Games. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 12(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, P., & Cooper, B. J. (2003). The Mad Hatter’s Corporate Tea Party. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(6/7), 505–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B. (1999). Research and Development and Capital Markets. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 11(4), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B., & Gu, F. (2016). The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, E., & Liu, L. (2012). Intangible Assets and Cross-Sectional Stock Returns: Evidence from Structural Estimation. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d069/ae2fcf9d6947fb5b2d869bd8f05c9a4cefa0.pdf.

  • Lim, L., & Dallimore, P. (2004). Intellectual Capital: Management Attitudes in Service Industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. (2012). Endogenous Technological Progress and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(2), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R. (2010, June). Measuring the Location of production in a world of Intangible Productive Assets, FDI, and Intra-Firm Trade. Review of Income and Wealth, 56(1), S99–S110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, A., & Alencar, R. (2010). Disclosure and Cost of Equity Capital in Emerging Markets: The Brazilian Case. The International Journal of Accounting, 45(4), 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LoPucki, L. M. (1997). The Systems Approach to Law. Cornell Law Review, 82, 479–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W., Chen, H., Jiang, L., et al. (2011). Stock Volatility as a Risk Factor for Coronary Heart Disease Death. European Heart Journal, 32(8), 1006–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchal, S., & Sauve, A. (2004, June). Goodwill, Balance Sheet Structures and Accounting Standard Recent Developments and Issues for French Groups. Banque de France—Financial Stability Review, 4, 127–132. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6612256.pdf?repositoryId=153.

  • Marco, T. (2005). The Option Value of Patent Litigation: Theory and Evidence. Review of Financial Economics, 14, 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, C., & Zur, E. (2015). The Role of Accounting Quality in the M&A Market. Management Science, 61(3), 487–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marrocu, E., Paci, R., & Pontis, M. (2012). Intangible Capital and Firms’ Productivity. Industrial & Corporate Change, 21, 377–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, C. (2004). Corporate Intangibles: Value Relevance and Disclosure Content. Accounting & Business Research, 34(4), 415–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, A. (2011). Impairment of Goodwill and Its Fiscal Treatment: More Trouble for the Portuguese Firms and Tax Courts? European Journal of Management, 11(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Bagnoli, C. (2015). Where There is a Will There is a Way: IC, Strategic Intent, Diversification and Firm Performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(34), 90–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massoud, M., & Viscolani, B. (2002). Accounting for Goodwill: Are We Better Off? Review of Business, 24(2), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrattan, E. (2017). Intangible Capital and Measured Productivity. NBER Working Paper No. 23233. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23233.

  • Melnik, S., Ward, J., Gleeson, J., & Porter, M. (2013). Multi-stage Complex Contagions. Chaos, 23, 013124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4790836.

  • Miklashevich, I. (2003). Mathematical Representation of Social Systems: Uncertainty and Optimization of Social System Evolution. Non Linear Phenomena in Complex Systems, 6(2), 678–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. (2012). A Comment on Saks and Neufeld: ‘Convergent Evolution in Law and Science: The Structure of Decision Making Under Uncertainty’. Law, Probability & Risk, 11(1), 101–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Watson, J. (2013). A Theory of Disagreement in Repeated Games with Bargaining. Econometrica, 81(6), 2303–2350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moehrle, S. R., Reynolds-Moehrle, J. A., & Wallace, J. S. (2001). How Informative Are Earnings Numbers That Exclude Goodwill Amortisation? Accounting Horizons, 15, 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogy, R., & Pruitt, D. (1974). Effects of a Threatener’s Enforcement Costs on Threat Credibility and Compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montero, J. (2001). Prices Versus Quantities with Incomplete Enforcement. Journal of Public Economics, 85(3), 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morady, M. (2013). Intellectual Capital Measuring Methods. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(3), 755–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosca, S., & Viscolani, B. (2004). Optimal Goodwill Path to Introduce a New Product. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 123(1), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, L. (1999, July/August). Intangibles: What Put the New in the New Economy? Federal Reserve Bank of Philadephia Business Review, pp. 3—16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, L. (2010). Intangible Assets and National Income Accounting. Review of Income and Wealth, 56(1), S135–S155. Also available at http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2008/wp08-23.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nan, L., & Wen, X. (2014). Financing and Investment Efficiency, Information Quality, and Accounting Biases. Operations Research, 60(9), 2111–2380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandi, A., Marta, R., et al. (2012). Economic Conditions and Suicide Rates in New York City. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175, 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikiforakis, N., Noussair, C., & Wilkening, T. (2012). Normative Conflict and Feuds: The Limits of Self-Enforcement. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 797–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nimtrakoon, S. (2015). The Relationship Between Intellectual Capital, Firms’ Market Value and Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from the ASEAN. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(3), 587–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noussair, C. N., & Tan, F. (2011). Voting on Punishment Systems Within a Heterogeneous Group. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 13, 661–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurnberg, H. (2006). The Distorting Effects of Acquisitions and Dispositions on Net Operating Cash Flow. Accounting Forum, 30(3), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2003a). Corporate Governance, Legal Reasoning and Credit Risk: The Case of Encompass Services Inc. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2003b). Corporate Governance, Legal Reasoning and Credit Risk: The Case of Encompass Services Inc. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(4), 270–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2003c). Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: A Critique of Options Pricing Models. Journal of Derivatives & Hedge Funds, 9(2), 164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2006). Decision-Making, Risk and Corporate Governance: New Dynamic Models/Algorithms and Optimization for Bankruptcy Decisions. Applied Mathematics & Computation, 179(1), 386–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2007a). Decision-Making, Risk and Corporate Governance: A Critique of Bankruptcy/Recovery Prediction Models. Applied Mathematics & Computation, 185(1), 178–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2007b). Some Game Theory and Financial Contracting Issues in Large Corporate Transactions. Applied Mathematics & Computation, 186(2), 1018–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2008). Some Litigation Decisions in Commercial Real Estate Leasing. Corporate Ownership & Control, 5(4), 240–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2010). Real Options, Enforcement of Goodwill/Intangibles Rules and Associated Behavioral Issues. Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2013). Decision-Making, Sub-Additive Recursive “Matching” Noise and Biases in Risk-Weighted Index Calculation Methods in In-Complete Markets with Partially Observable Multi-Attribute Preferences. Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms & Applications, 05, 1350020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2015a). Real Options, Enforcement of Goodwill/Intangibles Rules and Associated Behavioral Issues. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 18(3), 330–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2015b). Goodwill/Intangibles Rules and Earnings Management, and Competition. European Journal of Law Reform, 17(1), 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2016). Economic Psychology Issues Inherent in Illegal Online Filesharing by Individuals and Institutions and Illegal Online FileSharing as Production Systems. In M. Nwogugu (Ed.), Illegal Online Filesharing, Decision Analysis, and the Pricing of Digital Goods. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2017a). The Historical and Current Concepts of “Plain” Interest Rates, Forward Rates and Discount Rates are or can be Misleading. In M. Nwogugu (Ed.), Anomalies in Net Present Value, Returns and Polynomials, and Regret Theory in Decision Making (Chapter 6). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2017b). Some Biases and Evolutionary Homomorphisms Implicit in the Calculation of Returns. In M. Nwogugu (Ed.), Anomalies in Net Present Value, Returns and Polynomials, and Regret Theory in Decision Making (Chapter 8). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2017c). Regret Theory and Asset Pricing Anomalies in Incomplete Markets with Dynamic Unaggregated Preferences. In M. Nwogugu (Ed.), Anomalies in Net Present Value, Returns and Polynomials, and Regret Theory in Decision Making (Chapter 3). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2017d). Spatio-Temporal Framing Anomalies in the NPV-IRR Model and Related Approaches, and Regret Theory. In M. Nwogugu (Ed.), Anomalies in Net Present Value, Returns and Polynomials, and Regret Theory in Decision Making (Chapter 2). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Supporting Investment in Knowledge Capital, Growth and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohtsubo, Y., Masuda, F., Watanabe, E., & Masuchi, A. (2010). Dishonesty Invites Costly Third-Party Punishment. Evolution & Human Behavior, 31(4), 259–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osinski, M., Selig, P., et al. (2017). Methods of Evaluation of Intangible Assets and Intellectual Capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18, 470–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, F., et al. (2004). The Value of Waiting in Lawmaking. European Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, D., Glova, J., Lipták, F., & Kováč, W. (2017). Intangibles and Methods for Their Valuation in Financial Terms: Literature Review. Intangible Capital, 13(2), 387–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perc, M., Donnay, K., & Helbing, D. (2013). Understanding Recurrent Crime as System-Immanent Collective Behavior. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e76063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual Capital Literature Review: Measurement, Reporting and Management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piercey, M. D. (2009). Motivated Reasoning Versus Numerical Probability Assessment: Evidence from an Accounting Context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 330–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinegar, J., & Ravichandran, R. (2010). Raising Capital in Emerging Markets with Restricted Global Depositary Receipts. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16(5), 622–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky, G., Piquero, A. R., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Modeling Change in Perceptions About Sanction Threats: The Neglected Linkage in Deterrence Theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 343–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerot, B. (2010, March). The Impact of Regulatory Scrutiny on the Resolution of Material Accounting Issues. Paper Presented at the CAAA Annual Conference 2010. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1534349 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1534349.

  • Post, D. G., & Eisen, M. (2000). How Long Is the Coastline of the Law? Thoughts on the Fractal Nature of Legal Systems. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 545–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poterba, J., & Summers, L. (1986). The Persistence of Volatility and Stock Market Fluctuations. American Economic Review, 76(5), 1142–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (2008). Formalizing Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. Artificial Intelligence & Law, 16(4), 333–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preiato, J., Brown, P., & Tarca, A. (2015). A Comparison of Between-Country Measures of Legal Setting and Enforcement of Accounting Standards. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 42(1/2), 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ptok, A., Jindal, R., & Reinartz, W. (2018). Selling, General, and Administrative expense (SGA)-Based Metrics in Marketing: Conceptual and Measurement Challenges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 987–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramanna, K. (2008). The Implications of Unverifiable Fair-Value Accounting: Evidence from the Political Economy of Goodwill Accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(2–3), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauh, J., & Sufi, A. (2010). Capital Structure and Debt Structure. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(12), 4242–4280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, R., & Szilagyi, P. (2008). Corporate Restructuring and Bondholder Wealth. European Financial Management, 14(4), 792–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rincke, J., & Traxler, C. (2011). Enforcement Spillovers. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(4), 1224–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L., & Sansing, R. (2008). The Effect of “Invisible” Tax Preferences on Investment and Tax Preference Measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(2–3), 389–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodov, I., & Leliaert, P. (2002). FiMIAM: Financial Method of Intangible Assets Measurement. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Room, G. (2011). Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, H. (2013). Dynamics Among Nations. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J. B., & Ruhl, H. (1996). The Arrow of the Law in Modern Administrative States: Using Complexity Theory to Reveal the Diminishing Returns and Increasing Risks the Burgeoning of Law Poses to Society. University of California Davis Law Review, 30, 405–426 (explaining the various kinds of attractors).

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinas, G. (2009). The International Brand Valuation Manual (1st ed.). New York, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W. F. (1998). Settlements Out of Court: Efficiency and Equity. Group Decision and Negotiation, 7(2), 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M. (2005). Whistle Blowing Regulation and Accounting Standards Enforcement in Germany and Europe—An Economic Perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 25(2), 143–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R., Sutherland, P., Van Schalkwyk, C., Lowe, T., & Bockmann, R. (2011). Monitoring and Enforcement of Financial Reporting Standards in South Africa and Germany: A Comparative Assessment. Namibia Law Journal, 3(1), 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, J. (1991). Cooperative Regulatory Enforcement and the Politics of Administrative Effectiveness. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, W. (2005b). The Information Content of Goodwill-Impairments Under FAS 142: Implications for External Analysis and Internal Control. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57, 276–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seetharaman, A., Balachandran, M., & Saravanan, A. (2004). Accounting Treatment of Goodwill: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Problems and Prospects in the International Perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seetharaman, A., Sreenivasan, J., Sudha, R., & Yee, T. (2006). Managing Impairment of Goodwill. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(3), 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segovia, J., Arnold, V., & Sutton, S. (2009). Do Principles- vs. Rules-Based Standards Have a Differential Impact on US Auditors’ Decisions? Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 12, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setayesh, M. H., & Kazemnejad, M. (2009). Methods of Measuring and External Reporting of Intellectual Capital. Accountant Journal, 207, 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevin, S., & Schroeder, R. (2005). Earnings Management: Evidence from SFAS #142 Accounting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevin, S., Schroeder, R., & Bhamornsiri, S. (2007). Transparent Financial Disclosure and SFAS No. 142. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(7), 674–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoaf, V., & Zaldiva, I. (2005). Goodwill Impairment: Convergence Not Yet Achieved. Review of Business, 26(2), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, M., Brantingham, J., Bertozzi, A., & Tita, G. (2010). Dissipation and Displacement of Hotspots in Reaction-Diffusion Models of Crime. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 107, 3961–3965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spatt, C. (2010). Regulatory Conflict: Market Integrity vs. Financial Stability. University of Pittsburg Law Review, 71, 625, 630–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spatt, C. S. (2012). Complexity of Regulation. Harvard Business Law Review Online, 3, 1. http://www.hblr.org/?p=2299.

  • Stan, S., Dumitrascu, D., & Pele, A. (2017). Recognizing and Valuating Intangible Resources—Major Difficulties in Organisational Management. Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. (1970). The Optimum Enforcement of Laws. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 526–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., & Sullivan, P. (2000). Valuing Intangibles Companies—An Intellectual Capital Approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 328–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suriñach, J., & Moreno, R. (2011). The Role of Intangible Assets in the Regional Economic Growth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svanadze, S., & Kowalewska, M. (2015). The Measurement of Intellectual Capital by VAIC Method–Example of WIG20. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 3(2), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K. (2010). Methods for Measuring Intangible Assets. Working Paper. Available at http://www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm.

  • Sydler, R., Haefliger, S., & Pruksa, R. (2014). Measuring Intellectual Capital with Financial Figures: Can We Predict Firm Profitability? European Management Journal, 32(2), 244–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. (2009). Finiteness of Variance is Irrelevant in the Practice of Quantitative Finance. Complexity, 14(3), 66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. (2002). Social Functionalist Frameworks for Judgment and Choice: Intuitive Politicians, Theologians and Prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjio, H. (2009). Enforcing Corporate Disclosure. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 332–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollington, T. (1998a). Separating the Brand Asset from the Goodwill Asset. Journal of product & Brand management, 4, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollington, T. (1998b). What Are Assets Anyway? Some Practical Realities. Management Decision, 36(7), 448–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollington, T. (2006). UK Goodwill and Intangible Asset Structuration: The FRS10 Rule Creation Cycle. Critical Perspectives in Accounting, 17(6), 703–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollington, T., & Liu, J. (1998). When Is an Asset Not an Asset? Management Decision, 36(5), 346–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trotman, K. (2005). Discussion of Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1993). Penalty and Crime: Further Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5, 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UKCES (UK). (2011). Skills and Economic Performance: The Impact of Intangible Assets on UK Productivity—Evidence Report October 2011. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/303075/evidence-report-39-skills-and-economic-performance.pdf.

  • United Nations (New York & Geneva). (2008). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: Practical Implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards: Lessons Learned. Available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/diaeed20081_en.pdf.

  • Urpelainen, J. (2011). The Enforcement–Exploitation Trade-Off in International Cooperation Between Weak and Powerful States. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 631–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gennip, Y., Hunter, B., et al. (2013). Community Detection Using Spectral Clustering on Sparse Geosocial Data. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 73(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitorino, M. (2014). Understanding the Effect of Advertising on Stock Returns and Firm Value: Theory and Evidence from a Structural Model. Management Science, 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldfogel, J. (1998). Reconciling Asymmetric Information and Divergent Expectations Theories of Litigation. Journal of Law and Economics, 41(2), 451–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Kim, J., & Yi, J. (1994). Litigation and Pretrial Negotiation Under Incomplete Information. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 10, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, L., & Wruck, K. (1998). Information Problems, Conflicts of Interest, and Asset Stripping: Chapter 11’s Failure in the Case of Eastern Airlines. Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 55–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissing, F., & Ostrom, E. (1991). Crime and Punishment: Further Reflections on the Counterintuitive Results of Mixed Equilibria Games. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3, 343–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, H., & Moerhle, S. R. (2016). Accounting for Goodwill: An Academic Literature Review and Analysis to Inform the Debate. Research in Accounting Regulation, 28, 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2012). Capturing Time in Financial Statements. Harvard Business Law Review Online, 2, 150. http://www.hblr.org/?p=2140.

  • Williams, C., & Arrigo, B. A. (2002). Law, Psychology and Justice: Chaos Theory and New (Dis)Order. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N., & Wong, J. (2001). The Investment Opportunity Set and Acquired Goodwill. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(1), 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wruck, K. (1989). Equity Ownership Concentration and Firm Value: Evidence from Private Equity Financings. Journal of Financial Economics, 23, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wruck, K. (1990). Financial Distress, Reorganization, and Organizational Efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 419–444. Reprinted in Altman, E. (Ed). (1992), Bankruptcy and Distressed Restructurings: Analytical Issues and Investment Opportunities. Homewood: Business One Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wruck, K. (1991). What Really Went Wrong At Revco? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 4, 79–92. Reprinted in Chew, D. (Ed.). (1993). The New Corporate Finance: Where Theory Meets Practice New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wruck, K., & Baker, G. (1991). Lessons from a Middle Market LBO: The Case of O.M. Scott. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 4, 46–58. Reprinted in Chew, D. (Ed.). (1993). The New Corporate Finance: Where Theory Meets Practice. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wruck, K., Kaplan, S., & Mitchell, M. (2000). A Clinical Exploration of Value Creation and Destruction in Acquisitions: Organization Design, Incentives and Internal Capital Markets. In S. Kaplan (Ed.), Productivity of Mergers and Acquisitions (National Bureau of Economic Research, Conference Volume). Downloadable at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/paper.taf?ABSTRACT_ID=10995.

  • Wruck, K., Warner, J., & Watts, R. (1988). Stock Prices and Top Management Changes. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 461–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, A. (2005). Accounting Recognition of Intangible Assets: Theory and Evidence on Economic Determinants. The Accounting Review, 80(3), 967–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, D., Zhang, Y., Yeung, P., & Mak, D. (2010). Dynamic Game of Offending and Law Enforcement: A Stochastic Extension. International Game Theory Review, 12(4), 471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, T. (1997). The ABCs of Crime: Attractors, Bifurcations and Chaotic Dynamics. In D. Milanovic (Ed.), Chaos, Criminology and Social Justice: The New Orderly (Dis)Order. Westport, USA: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zambon, S., Marasca, S., & Chiucchi, M. (2019). Special Issue on “The role of Intellectual Capital and Integrated Reporting in Management and Governance: A Performative Perspective”. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(2), 291–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zang, Y. (2008). Discretionary Behavior with Respect to the Adoption of SFAS No. 142 and the Behavior of Security Prices. Review of Accounting and Finance, 7(1), 38–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zéghal, D., & Maaloul, A. (2011). The Accounting Treatment of Intangibles—A Critical Review of the Literature. Accounting Forum, 35, 262–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitun, R., & Tian, G. (2007). Does Ownership Affect a Firm’s Performance and Default Risk in Jordan? Corporate Governance, 7(1), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N. (2017). Relationship between Intangible Assets and Financial Performance of Listed Telecommunication Firms in China, Based on Empirical Analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 11(24), 751–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N., & Walton, D. (2010). Recent Trends in Evidence Law in China and the New Evidence Scholarship. Law, Probability & Risk, 9(2), 103–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Wang, P., & Qyu, B. (2012). Bank Risk taking, Efficiency and Law Enforcement: Evidence from Chinese City Commercial Banks. China Economic Review, 23(2), 284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Enugu, Nigeria

    Michael I. C. Nwogugu

Authors
  1. Michael I. C. Nwogugu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nwogugu, M.I.C. (2019). Intangibles Accounting Regulations and the “Global Intangibles Economy”: Belief-Revision, Enforcement Theory and Financial Stability. In: Complex Systems, Multi-Sided Incentives and Risk Perception in Companies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-44704-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-44704-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-44703-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44704-3

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation