Search results

This study investigates the adequacy of existing intangible asset models and defines and codifies common principal valuation drivers of intangible assets for use in enterprise balanced scorecard valuation practices of information technology (IT) firms.

Existing intangible asset balance scorecard valuation models and value chain models are evaluated to extract their value components and align them with performance‐based activities of the business enterprise to define a common taxonomy of value drivers of intangible assets. Chief executive officers (CEOs), chief finance officers (CFOs) and “other executives” of IT firms validate the taxonomy.

IT firms that use a standard and consistent taxonomy of intangible assets could increase its ability to identify and account for more intangible assets for measurement and valuation.

This study is limited to the Washington Metropolitan Area, is a single sector study (IT firms), the target audience is CEOs and CFOs; and emphasis is on the Score Card (SC) type model as classified by Sveiby. Future studies could expand the geographic circumference, the scope to other industry sectors, and the target audience to other decision makers

The framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA) allows a business to identify and link performance measurements/indicators to its intangible value drivers. It supports the capture and subsequent evaluation of leading and lagging indicators in the achievement of a knowledge management strategy.

FIVA provides a framework to have command of and access to effective utilization of business resources and knowledge, to develop, sustain and enhance its mission effectiveness and/or competitive advantage.

The purpose of this paper is to present valuation, economic, and corporate management aspects related to the design and implementation of intangible asset valuation in common business language.

The methodology or approach to identifying or naming intangible assets within the business environment was used.

The purpose of intangible asset valuation is to understand what the intangible asset is and how it affects the bottom line of the business. Understanding the reason for the intangible asset valuation, whether for tax purposes, corporate planning, or dispute resolution, is paramount when considering the nature of the intangible asset to be valued.

Intangible assets are generally not included in active company management. Many companies do not recognize or investigate ways to maximize the income to be derived from intangible assets or other benefits of a centralized intangible asset management program. Fundamental to valuing intangible assets are their identification and subsequent representation. As presented in this paper, the three categories of intelligence identify intangible assets by the business value drivers that comprise them.

The purpose of this paper is to provide examples and technical details for conducting a value network analysis that addresses the conversion and utilisation of intangible assets.

Value network analysis was first developed in 1993 and was adapted in 1997 for intangible asset management. It has been tested in applications from shop floor work groups to business webs and economic regions. It draws from a theory based in living systems, knowledge management, complexity theory, system dynamics, and intangible asset management.

The paper provides a high level of detail on the analysis method and insights from its practical application across a range of business issues. Tips are provided for how to integrate the methodology with other business analysis approaches.

The paper does not provide a comparative analysis with other methods because most other value network models are process views, social network analysis or clustering techniques.

Sufficient detail is provided so researchers and practitioners will be able to apply the method in their own investigations. Further resources are noted, as well as access points to the global user community and open source tools.

This paper is the first detailed publication of the value network analysis method, which has been acclaimed by experts in intangibles, network analysis, knowledge management, and process analysis. It fills a gap between theory and practice for managers, executives, analysts, and researchers.

The present study investigates the connection between company investments in intellectual capital (IC) and how they translate into financial value. The aim is to test the impact of intangible assets on the firm value and its sustainable growth.

The research employs computation models to determine the sustainable growth rate (SGR) and the firm value (FV), and by using the ordinary least squares (OLS) model through a linear regression assesses the relationship between the dependent variables and expenditures on intangibles like R&D, IT programs and patents. A sample of 42 companies has been selected out of the 78 listed at Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE), based on the appropriateness of the information disclosed in the financial reports for the period 2016–2019.

The results show that intangibles classified as innovative competences (R&D and Patents) do not have a positive impact on SGR and FV in listed companies from Romania. Moreover, R&D has a negative and significant effect on FV, while IT Programs have a positive and significant impact on FV, but not on the SGR. Variables categorised as economic competencies (Brands, Shares held in associates and jointly controlled entities) and firm structure-specific variables (Leverage, Firm Performance) seem to have a significant effect on SGR and FV. Shares held in associates and jointly controlled entities is the variable that can have the biggest impact when it comes to FV for companies listed at BSE.

Due to non-disclosure of specific information by some companies, or lack of investments in intangibles the sample had to be reduced and does not cover all listed companies.

Companies listed on the Regulated Market from the Bucharest Stock Exchange should maintain their scale of liabilities at a reasonable level when financing intangible assets in order to ensure corporate long-term and sustainable development. Also, these companies should maintain awareness about the importance of intangible assets and invest more in specific sub-components, in order to sustain competitive advantage. Recognizing the roles of intangibles, managers need to develop strategies to invest in profitable intangibles by reasonably allocating their limited resources, in order to achieve sustainable growth and increase company success.

Studies concerning the relation between investments in intangibles and sustainable growth rate and firm value of listed Romanian companies are very scarce. This paper reveals new research, never before undertaken, concerning expenditures on intangibles by Romanian companies and the valuation of such investments on Bucharest Stock Exchange.

The competitive model has changed. In this context, society entered into an era in which intangible assets are the greatest assets of a company. However, some gaps and uncertainties are presented in the literature as to understand the value of a company based on knowledge intensive activities. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the methods of evaluation of intangible assets in the context of business, economic and strategic management.

This is a qualitative research. This research is characterized as descriptive, bibliographic, inductive.

The main results of this research can highlight the existence of valuation methods of intangible assets intended for specific industries, as public and/or private, that can be better aligned to the context of business; economic and/or strategic management.

It was found that intangible assets are a current topic and increasingly addressed in the literature.

The provision of value, as a marketing issue, is receiving increasing attention from managers and scholars. This attention, in combination with strong calls for better quantification and stronger measures in marketing, has lead to increased interest in the assessment, quantified where possible, of the provision of value through buyer–seller relationships. This paper identifies dimensions of value provision through relationships in business markets with specific emphasis on the intangible aspects of value, which are important to long-term competitive advantage. The provision of value to the seller is the prime focus in this paper. The paper discusses the meaning of both tangible and intangible relationship value and the interplay between them and notes the importance of assessing the intangible part of the value, particularly the part which derives from the human aspects of the relationship. Despite their importance, the human aspects of relationships and their contribution to value is a sparse topic among researchers. The paper compares and evaluates potentially useful relationship and value conceptualizations. The paper discusses studies of relationship value and then outlines the results of a recent line of empirical research into the provision of value by a buyer to a seller that utilizes a framework synthesized from the intellectual capital literature. This recent research conceptualizes the potential for a seller's relationship with a buyer to provide intangible value to the seller in terms of, first, the resources available in the buyer and second, the capabilities of the buyer's boundary personnel to aid in facilitating the flow of those resources to the seller. The paper also includes the softer human aspects in the dimensions of value. These latter aspects are important to a full assessment of value. The paper concludes with a discussion of aspects of intangible relationship value that need further elucidation and will thus provide opportunities for future research.

Discusses intangible marketing assets and the difficulties of the valuation of these. Considers the problem of definition of intangible marketing assets and tries to clarify this. States the Accounting Principles Board (USA) as possessing the characteristic ‘identifiability’ and by the Accounting Standards Committee (UK and Ireland) as ‘separability’ and by others as controllability. However, within this article quantifies intangible marketing assets as ‘all non‐separable assets which yield a full advantage in the output markets of competitive organization’. Further looks at the historic costing and modernist accounting thought. Concludes by stating that the exclusion of marketing intangible assets from the accounting valuation process does, however, pose consequential dangers, which are itemized and discussed.

This paper aims to use a grounded theory approach to reveal that corporate private disclosure content has structure and this is critical in making “invisible” intangibles in corporate value creation visible to capital market participants.

A grounded theory approach is used to develop novel empirical patterns concerning the nature of corporate disclosure content in the form of narrative. This is further developed using literature of value creation and of narrative.

Structure to content is based on common underlying value creation and narrative structures, and the use of similar categories of corporate intangibles in corporate disclosure cases. It is also based on common change or response qualities of the value creation story as well as persistence in telling the core value creation story. The disclosure is a source of information per se and also creates an informed context for capital market participants to interpret the meaning of new events in a more informed way.

These insights into the structure of private disclosure content are different to the views of relevant information content implied in public disclosure means such as in financial reports or in the demands of stock exchanges for “material” or price sensitive information. They are also different to conventional academic concepts of (capital market) value relevance.

This analysis further develops the grounded theory insights into disclosure content and could help improve new disclosure guidance by regulators.

The insights create many new opportunities for developing theory and enhancing public disclosure content. The paper illustrates this potential by exploring new ways of measuring the value relevance of this novel form of contextual information and associated benchmarks. This connects value creation narrative to a conventional value relevance view and could stimulate new types of market event studies.

The purpose of this paper is primarily to explore the extent of intangible assets and liabilities of large Malaysian companies. The authors also examine whether intangible assets and liabilities of a firm have similar or contrasting roles in firm performance.

Using a direct and straightforward measure of intangible assets and liabilities, the authors examine a large pool of data from large Malaysian companies over a six-year period spanning from 2008 to 2013.

The longitudinal analyses show a significant number of the sample companies, between 34 and 59.33 percent, have a consistent pattern of intangible liabilities. The authors also find firms with intangible liabilities have significantly underperformed financially than a control group of firms. In addition, the authors find that intangible liabilities have significant negative impact on firm performance whereas intangible assets have a contrasting positive impact on firm performance.

One limitation of this study is that the authors have only used a single measure of intangible assets and liabilities. Albeit the measures used are straightforward and more objective, there could be other measures to capture intangibles.

The research findings have several theoretical as well as policy implications. Theoretically, the authors extend the resource-based view to the intangible asset-liability mix, affirming the crucial role of intangible resources in financial performance whilst introducing the unfavorable role of intangible liabilities in corporate financial performance. In terms of policy implications, the research findings provide initial empirical input to emerging calls for broader perspectives of intangibles, beyond intangible assets to include intangible liabilities, and therefore belong to an emerging paradigm toward the nature of intangibles.

This study documents a rare empirical account of the contrasting roles of intangible assets and liabilities in corporate financial performance.

Focusing on managerial problems related to the measurement of intangibles, this paper develops and validates a hedonic-pricing methodology for the evaluation of the intangible resources of companies obtaining their shadow prices.

The paper adapts a hedonic-pricing methodology developed primarily for markets in real estate and secondhand cars to define how much intangibles may contribute to companies' market value. A certain calibration of the original tool has been developed to make this methodology appropriate for interpretation and practical use. The main advantage of this approach is that it allows for an evaluation of the shadow prices of intangible resources. These prices can be interpreted as the market value of the intangible resources which are not reflected on the balance sheet.

The results of this study demonstrate that hedonic pricing with a self-selection correction generates robust estimates. As one can see, the positive contribution of a high endowment of intangibles for all shadow prices is confirmed through estimations using two different techniques. Meanwhile, the negative effect of a low endowment is even more evident for the baseline model. This model shows consistent negative shadow prices for the majority of underinvested intangibles. Brands have the highest shadow prices in the introduced models; human capital, as measured by the qualification of top management and investments in employees, has likewise demonstrated high prices. However, most structural resources seem to be not reflected to a large degree in companies' market value.

This paper brings new opportunities to obtain the monetary value of intangible resources based on estimated market prices of a corporation's resource portfolio. These prices may be used for several purposes – for example, benchmarking for performance management, capital budgeting or knowledge-management practices. Moreover, by having methodological value, this study opens ways to evaluate any other intangibles which are not explicitly discussed in the empirical test of this particular study.

This study primarily contributes to the methodological advancement of evaluation of corporate intangible resources. It departs from the conventional hedonic-pricing mechanism to identify cogent estimates to intangibles in monetary terms. Importantly, this mechanism implies individual shadow prices for specific intangible resources which makes the contribution of this study unique for the existing literature, both within resource-based and value-based views.