The Impact of Intangible Assets and Expenditures on Holding Period Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry expends billions of dollars yearly on intangibles, all in the pursuit of greater profits. Because of this, investors are naturally interested in whether intangible assets and expenditures truly create shareholder value. In this paper four intangibles, namely advertising, research and development (R&D), goodwill and other intangibles, are investigated to establish their effects on market-adjusted holding period returns (HPR), a measure of how much excess return an investor would have achieved over the market return during some specified time-frame. Results seem to indicate that of these variables, advertising does in fact seem to have a significant and positive impact on HPR. Concerns about the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Stein

K. C.

(1989). Efficient capital markets, inefficient firms: A model of myopic corporate behavior. Quart. J. Econ. 104(4), 655–669.

Lahart

(2004). Corner office thinks short-term. Wall Street Journal, 14 April, p. C3.

Haanes

Fjeldstad

Ø.

(2000). Linking intangible resources and competition. Eur. Manage. J. 18(1). 52–62.

Gross

(2001). Valuing intangibles: A tough job, but it has to be done. Business Week, 6 August, p. 54.

Warren

(2000). The softer side of strategy dynamics. Bus. Strat. Rev. 11(1), 45–58.

Zahra

S. A.

(1999). The changing rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century. Acad. of Manage. Exec. 13(1). 36–42.

Tran

Kleiner

B. H.

(2005). Effective executive management in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Health Care Fin. 32(1). 8–16.

Congressional Budget Office (2006) Research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, October.

Edwards

(2006). Drug ad spending up 9 per cent in 1906. Adweek Online, 28 December.

10.

The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation (2001). Prescription Drug Expenditures in 2000: The Upward Trend Continues, May.

11.

Barney

Wright

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. J. Manage. 27(6). 625–642.

12.

Bontis

Dragonetti

N. C

Jacobsen

Roos

(1999). The knowledge toolbox: A review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. Eur. Manage. J. 17(4). 391–402.

13.

Barney

J. B.

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manage. 17(1). 99–120.

14.

Carmeli

(2001). High- and low-performance firms: Do they have different profiles of perceived core intangible resources and business environment? Technovation 21(10). 661–671.

15.

Fernández

Montes

J. M.

Vázquez

C.J.

(2000). Typology and strategic analysis of intangible resources: A resource-based approach. Technovation 20(2). 81–92.

16.

Mikkelson

W. H.

Ruback

R. S.

(1985). An empirical analysis of the interfirm equity investment process. J. Fin. Econ. 14, 523–553.

17.

There was only one firm in our sample that had zero average expenditures in research and development over the five-year holding period. In order to conduct a test of differences, we grouped firms that had less than 1 per cent of their total sales invested in research and development into the category HPR 1..

18.

Kroll

Wright

Heiens

R. A.

(1999). The contribution of product quality to competitive advantage: Impacts on systematic variance and unexplained variance in returns. Strat. Manage. J. 20, 375–384.