Valor da marca e desempenho financeiro: desenvolvimento de um experimento quase natural no contexto norte-americano

Abstract

Brands are important intangible assets capable of significantly impacting a firm's performance, so building and managing brand equity has become a priority for companies of all sizes, across a variety of industries and markets. However, despite the recognition of the importance of estimation brand equity, the quantification of the returns of marketing activities in financial terms still represents a challenge. In this context, this study seeks to contribute to the literature by bringing the areas of marketing and finance together, investigating whether companies holding valuable brands present accounting and market performance superior to non-valuable companies, using a quasi-natural experiment using the Differences methodology -in-differences (DID), commonly applied in financial studies, based on the publication of the most valuable brands disclosed by Brand Finance, BrandZ and Interbrand. The sample was composed of publicly traded companies that trade their shares on North American stock exchanges. Data were collected from the Thomson and Economatica databases, covering a period of 25 years. Companies were classified into two groups: treatment (companies considered valuable) and control (companies not considered valuable). The results of descriptive statistics showed that companies with valuable brands, throughout the period, had higher market value and higher cash flow, as well as higher Total Assets and Equity, corroborating the premise that strong brands are more profitable, being able to increase the company's net income. In addition, valuable companies were more leveraged, corroborating the Trade-Off Theory, which suggests that companies with a good reputation in the market and more profitable can use higher levels of debt, due to the tax advantage related to the greater tax deductibility of the fees. The results of the DID model showed that after the Interbrand milestone, the difference found in Tobin's Q was positive (at 1% of statistical significance), as well as after the Brand Finance milestone, the difference in Intangible Assets was positive (at 1 % of significance). However, after the Interbrand milestone, the difference found in Free Cash Flow was negative (at 1% significance) and after the Brand Finance milestone, the difference observed in Free Cash Flow and Tobin's Q was also negative (at 5% and 1% significance, respectively). The negative results observed in the Free Cash Flow variable may be related to the firm's preference for internal resources to finance investments and are supported by the Pecking Order Theory. In addition, the results of the DID model may be associated with the maturity of the North American market, composed of established and internationally recognized companies, so that the publication of the rankings represents only an endorsement of the position these companies already occupy.