Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Effect of Intellectual Capital Disclosure to Cost of Finance and Firm Value of
Manufacturing Enterprises in Indonesia
Yonathan Said Marcos* & Sautma Ronni Basana*1 Management Program Studies, Financial Management Program
Faculty of Economics, Petra Christian UniversityJl. Siwalankerto 121-131, Surabaya
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Abstract : The transition from manufacturing-based economy to knowledge-based economy
lead to the increasing demand of information from stockholders to enterprises. In order to
satisfy this demand, various companies begin disclosing their intellectual capital publicly.
The increase in intellectual capital disclosure affects the company’s cost of finance. Along
with this, intellectual capital disclosure also has an effect on the firm value. This study aims
to examine the effect of Intellectual Capital Disclosure on Cost of Finance and Firm Value of
Manufacturing Enterprises listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange period year 2010-2015.
The independent variable used in this study is Intellectual Capital Disclosure, dependent
variables used are Cost of Finance, measured by Information Asymmetry, Cost of Equity, and
Cost of Debt; and Firm Value, and control variable consisting: Firm Size, Debt to Assets
Ratio, Profitability, Systematic Risk, Market to Book Ratio, Earnings Variability, and
Negative Earnings. The method used is panel data regression. The research revealed
Intellectual Capital Disclosure has a significant influence on Information Asymmetry, Cost of
Debt, and Firm Value; Firm Size and Debt to Assets Ratio on Information Asymmetry;
Negative Earnings, and Systematic Risk on Cost of Equity; Firm Size, Debt to Assets Ratio,
Market to Book Ratio, Negative Earnings on Cost of Debt; and Debt to Assets Ratio and
Profitability on Firm Value of Manufacturing Enterprises Going Public.
Keywords: Disclosure, Intellectual Capital, Cost of Finance, Firm Value
JEL Classification: G32, M49
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge and technology has always been an important factor in economy growth, but only
in recent years have companies started to focus more on the development of those resources.
This leads to a shift of focus to the important role of information, knowledge, and technology
in economy. The term “knowledge based economy” refers to the realization of the importance
of knowledge and technology in modern economy (OECD, 1996). This era of knowledge
based economy also marks the end of manufacturing based economy. In this era, a lot of
stakeholders are not satisfied with the traditional financial disclosure that is unable to give
enough beneficial information to stakeholders (Bozzolan, Favotto, & Ricceri, 2003). To
answer this growing need, companies started to disclose more non-financial information,
such as intellectual capital (Abeysekera & Guthrie, 2005).
PriceWaterhouseCoopers conducted a survey on instances regarding the types of investor
needs (Eccles, Herz, Keegan, & Philips, 2001 in Bozzolan et al., 2003). Among the investors’
top 10 most important types of information, only 3 are financial information (cash flow,
earnings, and gross margin), while 2 are internal information (strategic direction and
competitive landscape), and the remaining 5 are intangibles (market growth,
quality/experience of the management team, market size, market share and speed to market).
This survey shows that investors are more interested in information about intellectual capital
rather than just financial data.
A study on web-based intellectual capital disclosure in France, Belgium, Germany, and
Netherlands was conducted by Orens, Aerts, and Lybaert (2009). This Study found that not
only is intellectual capital disclosure positively related to firm value, it also reduce the firms’
cost of finance by decreasing information asymmetry, cost of equity, and cost of debt. This
indicates that just a simple act of disclosing more intellectual information can benefit firms.
This study aims to examine the effect of intellectual capital disclosure on the cost of finance
and firm value of manufacturing enterprises listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange period
year 2010-2015
1. Theories and Hypotheses
Intellectual capital can be defined as knowledge, experience, customer relationship, and
professional skill that can give a competitive advantage to company (CIMA, 2001). Sveiby
(1997) categorized intellectual capital into 3 groups, human capital, internal/structural capital,
and external/relational capital. Human capital refers to the knowledge, competence, and
professional skills of the firms’ employee. Structural capital looks at how the firm supports
their employee to give optimal output through their organizational structure and process.
Relational capital is the firms’ relation with their customer, supplier, distributor, or any other
stakeholder.
Until now, in Indonesia there is still no clear accounting standards that regulate intellectual
capital disclosure. As such, intellectual capital disclosure in Indonesia is still considered a
voluntary disclosure. Cerbioni and Parbonetti (2007) also said that intellectual capital
disclosure is a part of voluntary disclosure.
Intellectual capital disclosure provides the necessary information needed by investor to
reduce future uncertainty and accurately estimate the firms’ value (Bukh, 2003). It also gives
the firm substantial benefits such as (1) increase transparency and disclose intangible
information; (2) builds trust from the employee and stakeholders; (3) supports the firm’s long
term vision (Neysi, Mazraeh, & Mousavi, 2012).
Intellectual capital disclosure is associated with the level of firms’ cost of finance. Prior
literatures suggest that voluntary disclosure will have a negative relationship with cost of
finance (Diamond & Verrecchia, 1991; Lundholm & van Winkle, 2006). A more timely and
detailed disclosure will help investors accurately estimate their required return from
investments, and also reduce risk and future cash flow uncertainty (Handa & Linn, 1993;
Clarkson, Guedes, & Thompson, 1996).
There are three elements that is used to measure cost of finance, which is information
asymmetry, cost of equity, and cost of debt. Welker (1995), Healy, Hutton, and Palepu
(1999), and Zhang and Ding (2006) suggest that voluntary disclosure improves transparency
and reduce information asymmetry. Heflin, Shaw, and Wild (2001) also claims that
disclosure rating according to analysts shows a negative relationship to information
asymmetry.
Generally, disclosure quality have a negative relationship with cost of equity. A more
detailed disclosure will affect stock liquidity and estimation risk, thus lowering the cost of
equity (Hail, 2002). Boujelbene and Affes (2013) added that intellectual capital disclosure
also reduce cost of equity through its effect on information asymmetry.
Guidara, Khlif, and Jarboui (2014) studied cost of debt in South Africa. Their study found
that South African creditor tend to value voluntary disclosure more than financial disclosure
in annual report. Firms can then disclose their intellectual capital to give positive signal to
creditor that they can fulfill their responsibilities, thus reducing the risk premium and cost of
debt. Sengupta (1998) added that a more detailed disclosure will reduce creditors’ perception
on the firms’ default risk and lowers the cost of debt.
Aside from its effect on cost of finance, firms also use intellectual capital disclosure to
increase their firm value. Hassan, Romilly, Giorgioni, and Power (2009) suggest that
information disclosure is a mechanism to reduce agency cost that may arise from the
possibility of manager not taking a decision that benefits shareholders. Disclosure on
intellectual capital will help investors to keep track of the firm’s management because of its
role in the firm’s value creation.
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Control Variable
Figure 1. Framework of Thinking
Based on figure 1, hypotheses for this research are
H1: Intellectual capital disclosure has a significant effect on cost of finance (information
asymmetry, cost of equity, cost of debt)
H2: Intellectual capital disclosure has a significant effect on firm value.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data and Operational Variable
Data used in this research are secondary data acquired through annual report from Indonesia
Stock Exchange (www.idx.co.id) or through Bloomberg. Purposive sampling is used to
choose the most suitable firms for this research. The criteria used are (1) Firms that disclose
all annual report in the period 2010-2015; (2) Firms that use Rupiah as the currency in their
annual report; and (3) Firms that use debt in their capital structure.
Intellectual Capital Disclosure
Cost of Finance:
Information Asymmetry
Cost of Equity Cost of Debt
Firm Characteristic:
Firm Size Debt to Asset Ratio Profitability Systematic Risk Market to Book
Ratio Earnings Variability Ownership
Structure Negative earnings
Firm Value
To measure intellectual capital disclosure, intellectual capital disclosure index is used as a
proxy (Yan, 2017). A score will be given if a determined item is disclosed in the firm’s
annual report, while no score is given if it is not disclosed. To compute the intellectual capital
disclosure index is by dividing the score for disclosed items against the maximum number of
items to disclose in Table 1.
ICDi= ΣDiM
x100 %
Figure 2. Intellectual capital disclosure index
ICDi = Intellectual capital disclosure index
Di = 1 Score if disclosed, 0 if not
M = Maximum number of items to be disclosed according to Table 1
Table 1. Intellectual Capital Disclosure Checklist
HUMAN CAPITAL (HC)Item Explanation Keywords
Employee Education
Educational programs organized by a company to giveits employees the opportunities to study at schools
Study, Education, Scholarship
Vocational Qualification
Qualifications received by employees, as evidences fortheir possession of professional skills and knowledgerequired to do a particular job.
Education level, Qualification
Employee Engagement
Sense of identity from employees, which reflects thedegree that employees would like to dedicate themselvesto a company.
Dedication, Devotion, Employee Engagement, Employee Attachment
Union Activity Contents related to the activities of labor unions
Labor, Labor Union, Union
Employee ThankedExplicitly expression of thanks to employees for theirachievements in their works.
Thank you, Appreciation
Employee FeaturedExcellent performance of particular employees in aCompany
Employee performance, Award
Employee Involvement in the Community
Involvement and performance of employees incommunity works, for example, charity activities
Involved, Involvement, Participation
Employee Training
Training programs provided to employees, bothinternal and external of the company.
Training
Employee Development
Opportunities for employees’ future career developmentin a company.
Career development, Opportunity
Succession Planning
Contents related to future personnel arrangements,especially for high level management, such as chairman.
Succession Planning, Succession, Future Leader
Innovative Skills Achievements of employees that manifest their creativity.
Employee Achievement, Innovation, Creativity
Equity Issues
Fair opportunities are provided to all the employees,regardless of gender, religion, disability and race.
Equal, Equality, Fairness, Discrimination
Employee Safety and Health
A company has effective actions to protect the safety andhealth of employees when they are working.
Safety, Security, Health
Skills / Know-How
Employees possess the required professional skills andknowledge for their positions.
Experience, Professional Skills
Employee Work-Related Competence
Other required competences of employees, such ascommunication skills, leadership, teamwork, sensitivity,and so on.
Competence, Communication, Leadership, Teamwork, Sensitivity
Expert SeniorityNumber of years that executives have worked for thecompany.
During, Since
Senior Executive Senior executives’ achievements Executive
Performance and Results for a company.
performance, Executive achievement, Success
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL (SC)Item Explanation Keywords
Management Philosophy
The way in which a company is managed, such as strategyand mission of the company.
Mission, Strategy
Corporate Culture The values and beliefs of a company. Culture, Value
Management Process
Contents related to management plans and procedures ofoperations which can be followed by employees.
Standard Operating Procedure, Guide, Operation Procedure
Achievement Clarification of particular achievements of a company
Appreciation, Achievement, Award, Certification
Information Systems
Information systems possessed by a company, such asdatabases, computer software and hardware, and so on.
Information Software, Software, Database, Application, ERP
Networking Systems
The media through which a company can better get accessto its stakeholders, such as e-mail, newspaper and theinternet.
Email, Website
Intellectual Property
Intellectual properties which are protected by laws, suchas copyrights, trademarks, patents, and so on.
Patent, Trademark, Copyright
Organization FlexibilityThe ability that a company can survive in challengingenvironment.
Survive, Challenge, Crisis
Organization Learning
The ability of a company to learn from its prior experienceand to make improvements in the future.
Improve, Correction, Growth, Enhancement
Research and Development
Investments in things like products, projects, in an effortto create future growth potential for a company.
R&D, Research, Development
RELATIONAL CAPITAL (RC)Item Explanation Keywords
Brands Contents related to the brands of a company. Brand
Customers
Customer base of a company, which is supported byloyalty and confidence of customers
Customer Base, Loyal, Main Customer, Customer
Company Names
The influence and reputation of a company’s nameperceived by stakeholders in the market place
Reputation, Famous, Existence, Image
Favorable Contracts
Contracts are successfully obtained by a company, thanksto its dominant position in the market
Contract
Market Share The market shares of a company Market Share
Distribution Channels
The processes through which a company distributes itsproducts and services to customers.
Distribution
Business Collaborations
Partnerships with other companies in the process ofproducing products and rendering services to customers.
Collaboration. Partner, Partnership, Cooperation
Licensing Agreements
The agreements arrived with other organizations, whichpromise to provide products and services to theseorganizations
License, Agreement
Franchising Agreements
The contract given to franchisees to sell the products andservices of the company
Franchise
Financial RelationsA company’s relationships with its investors, creditors andother financial backers
Investor Relation, Investor, Relation, Creditor, Bank, Financial Relations
2.2 Data Analysis
The statistical tool used is Eviews 6. This study uses panel data technique to analyze the data.
This study uses panel data technique because the data is taken from different cross sections
and time series. The panel data analysis uses 48 firms that have passed the sampling criteria
in the period 2010-2015. To study the effect of intellectual capital disclosure on cost of
finance and firm value, we use four (4) models, information asymmetry; cost of equity; cost
of debt, as a measure of cost of finance; and firm value. The model used for the analysis is
Model 1:
IA i,t = β0 + β1 ICDIi,t + β2 FS i,t + β3 DAR i,t + β4 OS i,t + e
IA : Information Asymmetry
ICDI : Intellectual Capital Disclosure
FS : Firm Size
DAR : Debt to Asset Ratio
OS : Ownership Structure
Model 2:
COE i,t = β0 + β1 ICDI i,t + β2 FS i,t + β3 DAR i,t + β4 MTB i,t + β5 NE i,t + β6 VAR i,t + β7 BETA i,t +
e
COE : Cost of equity
ICDI : Intellectual Capital Disclosure
FS : Firm Size
DAR : Debt to Asset Ratio
MTB : Market to Book Value
NE : Negative Earnings
VAR : Earnings Variability
BETA: Systematic Risk
Model 3:
COD i,t = β0 + β1 ICDI i,t + β2 FS i,t + β3 DAR i,t + β4 MTB i,t + β5 NE i,t + β6 VAR i,t + e
COD : Cost of Debt
ICDI : Intellectual Capital Disclosure
FS : Firm Size
DAR : Debt to Asset Ratio
MTB : Market to Book Value
NE : Negative Earnings
VAR : Earnings Variability
Model 4:
Va i,t = β0 + β1 ICDI i,t + β2 FS i,t + β3 DAR i,t + β4 OS i,t + β5 PR i,t + e
Va : Firm Value
ICDI : Intellectual Capital Disclosure
FS : Firm Size
DAR : Debt to Asset Ratio
OS : Ownership Structure
PR : Profitability
Table 2. Measurement of the dependent, independent, and control variables
Variable MeasurementInformation Asymmetry Volume of shares traded times stock price divided by total market capitalization
Cost of EquityCapital Asset Pricing Model; return of risk free asset plus firm's beta times the difference between market return and risk free asset's return
Cost of Debt Proportion of interest paid to total long term debt
Firm Value
Tobin's q is measured by the sum of book value of total assets and the difference between book value of equity and market value of equity, scaled by book value of total assets
Intellectual Capital DisclosureTotal items in the intellectual capital diclosure checklist disclosed by the firm divided by total items in the intellectual capital disclosure checklist
Firm Size Logarithm of total assetsDebt to Assets Ratio Total debt scaled by total assetsProfitability Net profit (loss) scaled by total assetsSystematic Risk Beta coefficient of the firmMarket to Book Ratio Market value of equity scaled by book value of equityEarnings Variability Logarithm of the change in earnings per shareNegative Earnings Dummy variable representing 1 if the firm recorded a net loss and 0 otherwise
3. Empirical Results
3.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics (N=288)
MAX MIN MEAN STDEVIA 0.00870 0.00001 0.00105 0.00155COE 0.70490 -0.28823 0.10158 0.13237COD 1.10999 0.00801 0.09501 0.08592Va 19.29494 0.33631 1.94739 2.54757ICDI 0.89189 0.18919 0.49672 0.16585FS 1.15806 1.03879 1.09224 0.02506DAR 1.04711 0.00042 0.28388 0.20175PR 0.42135 -0.20804 0.06672 0.09967BETA 1.91463 -0.07930 0.69826 0.40969MTB 60.61405 -7.22119 2.88242 6.77830VAR 3.08600 -1.00000 1.23260 0.74762NE 1.00000 0.00000 0.15278 0.36040
To see the data distribution, we use descriptive statistics. Table 2 shows that information
asymmetry has a wide range from 0.00001 to 0.0087; this means that some firms dominate
the transaction in the market while the others just took 0.001% of the market transaction.
Cost of equity shows a mean of 0.10158, higher than cost of debt at 0.09501, indicating that
investors require more return from capital market than from bonds because of the higher risk.
The firm value has a high standard deviation, indicating a high data spread. The intellectual
capital disclosure has an average of 0.496715, ranging from 0.189189 to 0.891892. The
bigger firms, especially those that are included in LQ45 index like ASII, HMSP, KLBF,
SMGR, and UNVR disclose more intellectual capital. On average, manufacturing firms has
0.283885 debt to assets ratio. This shows that most firms use equity as their choice of
financing rather than debt making the firms to have lower default risk. However, some firms
still use higher debt ratio, this can be seen from the 1.047109 maximum value, which means
the debt is higher than the asset itself. The profitability has a minimal value of -0.20804
shows that some firms still have a net loss in period 2010-2015. In contrast, the mean of
profitability is 0.066719, indicating that most manufacturing firms still record a net profit in
the period 2010-2015. Market to book value has a much bigger standard deviation compared
to its mean; this shows that the data is spread unevenly.
3.2 Regression Analysis
This study uses panel data analysis because the data are taken from different cross sections
and time series. There are 3 models that can be used in panel data regression: (1) common
effect model; (2) fixed effect model; and (3) random effect model. Common effect model is
used for this study.
The findings of this research are provided in table 3. Intellectual capital disclosure, firm size,
and debt to asset ratio all have significant effect on information asymmetry. Due to the
attribute of the variable used in measuring information asymmetry, the higher the value
means lower information asymmetry. Intellectual capital disclosure will decrease information
asymmetry because of the higher amount of information provided to outside parties. Greater
firm size also means that there is more media coverage of that firm, thus reducing the
information asymmetry.
This study found that negative earnings and systematic risk has a significant effect on cost of
equity. Intellectual capital disclosure, firm size, debt to asset ratio, market to book ratio, and
earnings variability are found to have less significant effect on cost of equity. In the period of
this research, Indonesia’s stock market is in an irregular condition with Indonesia Composite
Index recording a depreciation in value. Because we use CAPM as a way to measure cost of
equity, this depreciation of Indonesia Composite Index also plays a role on the value of cost
of equity.
Intellectual capital disclosure also affects cost of debt significantly. Bigger firms tend to have
lower default risk, resulting in lower cost of debt. Higher debt to assets ratio results in lower
cost of debt because debt is used as the divisor in measuring cost of debt. In normal situation,
interest will also increase in accordance to debt, but in this case because Indonesia’s lending
rate is at a stagnant condition, it didn’t happen. Market to book ratio shows how the market
appreciates the firm’s value, and higher value indicates a healthier firm, thus reducing the
cost of debt. Firms that have negative earnings gives a negative signal to creditors. Because
of the higher default risk, creditors will need a higher compensation from firms that records
net loss.
Firm value is significantly affected by intellectual capital disclosure, debt to assets ratio, and
profitability. More detailed and timely disclosure will increase the firm’s transparency,
reduce risk perception, and increase firm’s value. Higher leverage, if used correctly, will
become a great help to firms’ financial needs. More profitable firms will have higher net
income, accumulate more wealth, and in turn increase their value.
Table 4. Common Effect Model Regression Results
Information Asymmetry Cost of Equity Cost of Debt Firm Value
Intercept -0.041917 (-14.07237)*** 0.853427 (1.76792)* 0.983206 (3.888902)*** -5.431465 (-1.06493)
Intellectual Capital Disclosure 0.001163 (2.474565)*** -0.070566 (-1.145456) 0.099818 (2.690203)*** 1.69918 (2.279541)**
Firm Size 0.039309 (13.74862)*** -0.710562 (-1.512111) -0.827055 (-3.370329)*** 4.434018 (0.901631)
Debt to Assets Ratio -0.001916 (-5.658959)*** -0.006162 (-0.13134) -0.147493 (-5.160086)*** 1.415266 (2.275904)**
Market to Book Ratio -0.000677 (-0.54167) -0.001809 (-2412828)**
Negative Earnings -0.081574 (-3.372119)*** 0.05168 (3.572091)***
Earnings Variability 0.014976 (1.301153) 0.004067 (0.585346)
Systematic Risk 0.081648 (3.46973)***
Profitability 19.33563 (15.40031)***
Adjusted R2 0.567168 0.055451 0.184062 0.599648
F-Statistic 126.3581*** 3.406945*** 11.79043*** 108.4671***
Note: t-statistic are in parentheses. *, **, and *** are statistically significant at the 10 percent, 5 percent, and 1 percent level, respectively
4. Conclusions
The results shows that intellectual capital disclosure have a significant effect on both cost of
finance and firm value. This means that firm with higher intellectual capital disclosure will
benefit more from the cheaper financing methods and also greater firm value. Control
variables such as firm size also shows consistent result that bigger firms tend to have less cost
of finance.
This study has provided empirical evidence that intellectual capital disclosure of
manufacturing firms in Indonesia has a significant effect on cost of finance and firm value.
However, only the effect of total intellectual capital disclosure is measured. Studying the
effect of human capital, structural capital, and relational capital disclosure on the same
dependent variable is an interesting idea for further research.
References
Abeysekera, I. & Guthrie, J. (2005). An empirical investigation of annual reporting trends of
intellectual capital in Sri Lanka. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3), 151-163.
Boujelbene, M.S., Affes, H. (2013). The Impact of Intellectual Capital Disclosure on Cost of
Equity Capital: A Case of French Firms. Journal of Economics, Finance &
Administrative Science, 18(34), 45-53
Bozzolan, S., Favotto, F., & Ricceri, F. (2003). Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure
An empirical analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 543-558.
Bukh, P. N. (2003). The relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: a paradox?. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(1), 49-56
CIMA. (2001). Managing the Intellectual Capital within Today’s Knowledge-based
Organisations, September Technical Briefing.
Cerbioni, F., Parbonetti, A. (2007). Exploring the Effects of Corporate Governance on
Intellectual Capital Disclosure: An Analysis of European Biotechnology Companies.
European Accounting Review, 16 (4), 791-826
Clarkson, P., Guedes, J. & Thompson, R. (1996). On the diversification, observability, and
measurement of estimation risk. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,
31(1), 69-84
Diamond, D. & Verrecchia, R. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. Journal
of Finance, 66(4), 1325-1355
Guidara, A., Khlif, H. & Jarboui, A. (2014). Voluntary and timely disclosure and the cost of
debt: South African evidence. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22(2), 149-164
Hail, L. (2002). The Impact of Voluntary Corporate Disclosures on the Ex ante Cost of
Capital for Swiss Firms. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 741-772
Handa, P. & Linn, S. (1993). Arbitrage pricing with estimation risk. Journal of Financial
Economics, 28(1), 81-100
Hassan, O., Romilly, P., Giorgioni, G. & Power, D. (2009). The value relevance of
disclosure: evidence from the emerging capital market of Egypt. International
Journal of Accounting, 44(1), 79-102
Healy, P., Hutton, A. & Palepu, K. (1999). Stock performance and intermediation changes
surrounding sustained increases in disclosure. Contemporary Accounting Research,
16(3), 485-520
Heflin, F., Shaw, K. W., & Wild, J. J. (2001). Disclosure quality and market liquidity,
Working paper, Purdue University
Neysi, S. H., Mazraeh, S., & Mousavi, Z. (2012). The Importance of Intellectual Capital
Disclosure. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(15)
Orens, R., Aerts, W. & Lybaert, N. (2009). Intellectual capital disclosure, cost of finance and
firm value. Management Decision, 47(10), 1536-1554
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (1996). The
Knowledge-Based Economy. available at: www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/1913021.pdf
Sengupta, P. (1998). Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. The Accounting
Review, 73(4), 459-474
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. New York: Berrett-Koehler
Welker, M. (1995). Disclosure policy, information asymmetry and liquidity in equity markets. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(3), 801-828
Yan, X. (2017). Corporate governance and intellectual capital disclosures in CEOs’ statements. Nankai Business Review International, 8 (1)
Zhang, L. & Ding, S. (2006). The effect of increased disclosure on cost of capital: evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 27(4), 383-401
