Search results

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.

An overwhelming literature on intangibles has been published over past three decades. Based on the evidence provided by recent research studies and the experiences of companies and policy makers this article provides a summary of our current knowledge on intangibles and suggests some directions for future research and for the improvement of management and reporting practices, as well as of policy making.

The aim of this research is to analyse the impact of intangible assets on firm’s sporting and financial performance.

The hypothesis of this research was developed through grounded theory and previous findings from the literature. This study adopted multiple regression method to analyse the impact of intangible assets on sporting and financial performance.

The findings indicate that intangible assets affect both sporting and financial performance. This is consistent with resource‐based view theory, which maintains that firms achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and superior financial performance by owning or controlling intangible strategic assets. By intangible strategic assets, it is meant the specific and valuable capability that belongs to the organisation.

The finding of this study is limited to a sample of UK listed soccer corporations. A possible opportunity of future research is to replicate the current study with other corporations and explore alternative measures of intangible assets.

The main innovation contained in this study relies on the measure of intangible assets. This paper employed players’ registration costs as a measure of intangible assets. To my knowledge this has not been addressed before in finance and accounting research.

Intangible assets have grown in size and importance to individual firms and to the economy as a whole. Many have examined and written about ways to value the intangible assets of firms and the overall economy. Professor Baruch Lev of New York University has developed an approach to measure intangibles performance for any company, or division of a company, that uses GAAP financial reporting and that has publicly traded equity. Professor Lev has also established how intangibles performance is linked to stock returns. The collaborative research of the co‐authors has extended this linkage by identifying certain management practices as drivers of intangibles performance. The culmination of this work is a breakthrough – for the first time, specific management practices can be linked to stock returns.

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 relevance of intangible assets for financial performance is getting more widely accepted. There is also some convergence about the conceptual structure of intangibles. What has not been underlined enough yet is the synergic nature of different types of intangibles. In this paper, it is argued, in the light of a case study of nine Finnish companies, that the intangibles form a value chain of generative and commercially exploitable intangibles. Furthermore, it is argued that each company at each time has an emphasis on a certain type of intangibles, sometimes even neglecting others. The paper seeks to propose that it is important to identify the primary intangibles and their current relationships with other forms of intangibles. The management of intangibles is hence a matter of integration and delicate balance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the needs to assess the value and impact of the intangible resources and efforts produced by the library.

A literature overview is used to provide the background of intangibles assessment and its application in libraries, with examples of library intangible resources used and efforts produced, and reviews the possible benefits for libraries in adopting and effectively utilizing intangible assessment.

The library has multiple intangible assets, resources, and efforts it produces that are not generally accounted for in annual assessments, accountability reporting, or budget planning. Learning to account for and include the intangibles used/produced by the library will increase the library's capability to address accountability concerns of stakeholders, more effectively align the library's resources with strategic responses, and more effectively utilize intangible assets and resources.

Increased reporting and usage of intangible resources/products by the library could provide library administrators with a proactive means of increasing the effectiveness and scope of library assessment, valuation, and resource planning and usage.

According to several authors 50 per cent of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) operations destroy value. The aim of this paper is to study the reasons why it happens and to seek to reveal that intangible assets, which are increasingly important in today's economy, must be better assessed during the due diligence phase.

The authors present a part of the French intangible assets measurement approach, which has been published by the French Intangible Assets Observatory. The methodology proposes an extended balance sheet which is an interesting addition to the IAS‐IFRS intangible standard. It identifies 12 classes of intangible assets including human capital and customer capital.

The paper proposes a due diligence approach, using the French methodology and applies it to the insurance sector.

This paper is not an academic paper. However, a significant research program is now underway in France. Academic publications are expected to be submitted.

The practice of intangible due diligence is a key issue in today's increasingly intangible economy. This practice is on the verge of a very strong development.

The paper presents a systemic approach to intangible assets. It answers a key question: what are the main assets that are necessary to start and continue a process of value creation? Accounting only recognizes the intangible assets that are not overly volatile, for prudential reasons. But even if customers or teams are “too intangible” for accountants, they are required to generate cash flows. If they are not evaluated, the process of wealth creation is not under control. This is crucial in M&A.

The purpose of this study is to identify the norms that underlie and condition the decisions made by preparers of financial reports.

This interview-based study illustrates how financial report preparers engage in behaviors linked to the perception of recognition and measurement of internally generated intangible assets by important stakeholders. All of the companies included in the study adhere to International Financial Reporting Standards when creating their consolidated financial statements. The participants selected for the study are involved in accounting decisions related to research and development in accordance with International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38.

The authors identify the normative assumptions underlying the recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles, which are based on concerns of consistency, credibility and reasonableness. The authors find that the normative basis for legitimacy in financial accounting is primarily related to cognitive legitimacy and is not of a moral or pragmatic nature.

The study reveals that recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles in financial accounting relate to legitimacy. The authors identify specific norms that form the basis of this legitimacy, namely, consistency, credibility and reasonableness. These identified norms serve as constraints, mitigating the risk of judgment misuse within the IAS 38 framework for earnings management.

This study aims to explore brand meaning from a consumer perspective, identifying tangible attributes and intangible associations and their arrangement in brand meaning frameworks. Previous literature has focused on brand meaning flowing from intangible associations, and new insights are offered into the tangible attributes’ contribution to brand meaning.

A phenomenological approach was adopted, and meanings were gathered from lived experiences with consumers of local food brands. Quasi-ethnographic methods were used, including accompanied shopping trips to food fairs and local farm shops, kitchen visits and in-depth interviews in and around the county of Dorset in the south-west of England.

The findings demonstrate that tangible attributes have sensorial and functional brand meanings and are mentally processed. Both hierarchical and flatter patterned approaches are present when connecting attributes and associations. The hierarchical approach reflects both short and long laddering approaches; the flatter alternative offers an interwoven, patterned presentation.

This is a small in-depth study of local food brands, and the findings cannot be generalised across other brand categories.

Local food brand practitioners can promote relevant sensorial (e.g. taste) and functional (e.g. animal welfare) attributes. These can be woven into appropriate intangible associations, creating producer stories to be communicated through their websites and social media campaigns.

A revised brand meaning theoretical framework updates previous approaches and develops brand meaning theory. The study demonstrates that tangible attributes have meaning and hierarchical connections across tangible attributes, and intangible associations should not always be assumed. An additional patterned approach is present that weaves attributes and associations in a holistic, non-hierarchical way.