Market Valuation Of Research And Development Investments By Indian Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to measure the relationship between research and development (R&D) expenditure and market value of the firm. Number of studies has already been conducted in U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Canada, Italy etc. to explore the relationship between R&D and market value. Market value of the equity of firm reflects the value of the firm's tangible and intangible assets. The objective of this paper is to investigate whether market places a positive value on reported R&D spending of the firm. The focus on market value of the firm as a measure of the success of its innovative activity derives from the notion that R&D expenditure creates intangible assets for the firm. Sample consists of manufacturing companies publicly traded in India. Data for different variables namely market value of firm, book value of tangible assets and intangible assets, value of research and development expenditure, value of sales are analysed by applying regression analysis. Results shows that one unit increase in research and development expenditure ratio leads to 9. 9 percent increase in market value of the firm. Results are significant at one percent level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".