Valuing Intangible Assetsmyobatlas-production-apac.s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com...The three key methods of intangible asset valuation below are identified by Euromoney Institutional

Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 1

Valuing Intangible Assets

Ben Flavel

2008 (updated 2010)


Contents

1. Executive Summary........................................................................................... 3

2. Why should we value intangible assets? ............................................................ 4

2.1 Consequences of overvaluing intangibles....................................................... 4

2.1.1 Case study analysis (dotcom crash) .................................................... 5

2.2 Consequences of undervaluing intangibles..................................................... 7

3. How do we value intangible assets? ................................................................... 9

3.1 Cost based ..................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Market based ................................................................................................. 9

3.3 Income based............................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 Royalty relief ................................................................................... 10

3.3.2 Economic use................................................................................... 10

3.4 Table - Identification and Valuation Methods of Specific Intangible Assets . 12

4. Intangible Assets and IFRS...............................................................................13

4.1 IFRS Origins and Reason for Being ............................................................. 13

4.2 Structure and Governance of IASB .............................................................. 14

4.3 How does IFRS work? (specifically for intangible assets)? .......................... 15

4.3.1 List of IFRS ..................................................................................... 15

4.3.2 Amortization of an intangible asset................................................... 16

4.4 IFRS Effects ................................................................................................ 17

5. Recommendations ............................................................................................19

6. References........................................................................................................20


1. Executive Summary

An intangible asset, as defined by the Australian Accounting Standards 2008 is

“an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance”.

Intangible assets can be categorised into market-related (e.g. trademark), customer-

related (e.g. customer lists), artistic-related (e.g. plays and operas), contract-based

(e.g. licensing) and technology-based (e.g. software).

Intangible assets are an emerging point of value for businesses in a modern economy.

The technology era, especially the advent of computer software and the internet,

has increased the need to accurately value separable intangible assets.

Risks are inherent in the overvaluing or undervaluing of these assets. Therefore, it is

important to understand how to identify and measure them. Methods of

measurement will include one or more of cost, market or income based valuation.

New international financial reporting standards recognise this need and stipulates

how and where these assets should be accounted for and amortized.

A list of recommendations will complete this report.


2. Why should we value intangible assets?

“Stock price volatility arises as a result of the difficulty to accurately estimate the

future payoffs and the risk associated with the investment in intangible-intensive

companies” (Garcia-Ayuso 2002). If the valuations of companies with more tangible

assets are described as “a guess compounded by an estimate”, for those with more

intangibles such as dot-com and technology companies, this valuation technique

would be more accurately described simply as “a guess” (Brady, Beach and

Skomorucha 2003).

The inefficient valuation of intangible assets has significant implications for firms and

their shareholders. Therefore, appropriate valuations are essential for management,

all shareholders and debtors. Detailed information contained in financial reports is

important for investors to make decisions as to whether to invest and the proportion

of investing.

As Plakalo notes (2006), “although those (intangible) assets often represent less than

a third of organisational market value in modern economies, focusing on the

performance of tangible assets is often the short cut most managers choose to take

on their path to compliance”.

2.1 Consequences of overvaluing intangibles

If intangible asset disclosures are overvalued, the investors of these companies may

not receive their required return, because the actual underlying value of the

company is not fully outlined. This creates a low cost-of-capital and an influx of risky

ventures.

Overstating the intangible asset values of companies’, results in significant losses for

investors when stocks prices revert to their fundamental values (Garcia-Ayuso 2002).

Incorrect management of intangible assets when future earnings are in question

creates a real business problem (Gerzema 2008). If future cash flows cannot be


generated to the budget’s expectations, the investors’ confidence to inject additional

capital wanes, sending many companies into bankruptcy.

Debt holders have no protection. When a company fails, typically, tangible assets are

available to be converted into cash. When there is a dominance of intangible (illiquid)

assets, there is no foundation for a restructured company to go forward, or money

to repay some portion of the failed company’s debt (Brady, Beach and Skomorucha

2003).

2.1.1 Case study analysis (dotcom crash)

The dot-com crash of the early 2000’s is probably the most widely publicised

example of what can occur when intangible assets are overvalued.

Dot-com companies don’t typically possess hard or tangible assets like equipment,

fixtures and inventory. Therefore, the majority of dot-com companies’ asset value

exists in intangible assets, including: intellectual property (i.e., copyrights,

trademarks and patents); proprietary software or technology; domain names;

licensing agreements; brand names; customer lists and data; and key employees

(Brady, Beach and Skomorucha 2003).

It was the overvaluation of stock prices relative to the actual underlying value of the

dot companies themselves that was the root cause of the dot-com crash.

In the year beginning April 2000, the technology-heavy NASDAQ lost more than $2

trillion in value. During the period from 2000-2003, 93,079 Internet-related jobs

were cut in the U.S. alone and 4,854 internet companies were acquired or shut down

(Cassidy 2002).

How did the bubble grow? The venture capitalists saw significant rises in stock

valuations of dot-com companies, and therefore moved faster and with less caution

than usual, choosing to mitigate the risk by starting many contenders and letting the

market decide which would succeed. “Although a number of these

new entrepreneurs had realistic plans and administrative ability, most of them


lacked these characteristics but were able to sell their ideas to investors because of

the novelty of the dot-com concept” (Cassidy 2002).

Why did so many dot-com companies crash all of a sudden? Looking back,

price/earnings ratios traded on the stocks of dot-com companies in 1999 averaged

higher than 30. Yahoo for example had a P/E of 571 at its peak in 1999. Most

investors believed there was high upside potential. Stocks were buoyed by the

speculative “bubble” due to overvaluation of intangible assets. The initial

overvaluation of intangible assets of high-tech companies and the subsequent crash

of the stock market resulted in a dramatic social and economic impact (Garcia-Ayuso

2002).

The above is perhaps best exemplified through the example of Priceline.com, an

online airline ticket retailer in the U.S. On the morning of March 30 1999, 10 million

shares of Priceline.com opened on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol

PCLN. Issued at $16 each, at the close of trading, the stock stood at $68; it had risen

425 percent in one day. Priceline.com was valued at “almost $10 billion -- more than

United Airlines, Continental Airlines, and Northwest Airlines combined” (Cassidy

2002).

After 8 months trading, Priceline.com had recorded a trading loss of over $1.5M.

Including other expenditures (website, marketing, stock options etc), it lost more

than $114M, yet investors had valued the company at $10 billion.

How could a start-up online retailer that was losing three dollars for every dollar it

earned come to be valued, on its first day as a public company, so highly? The

overvaluation of Priceline.com’s intangible assets by investors formed the bubble,

once reality had set in the bubble was destroyed and all capital lost.

Overvaluation of intangible assets inflamed the dot-com boom and was one of the

multi-faceted factors that contributed to its eventual bust.


2.2 Consequences of undervaluing intangibles

The undervaluation of intangible assets has two main influences; it reduces a firm’s

ability to raise additional capital and it increases hostile takeover risk (Garcia-Ayuso

2002). “Investors are underestimating the value of intangibles, and when investors

underestimate assets, the cost of capital to the company is too high, hindering

growth and investment” (Beruch 2003).

Intangible assets are the modern drivers of growth and competitiveness in business.

However, the uncertainty regarding the financial position of intangible assets within

companies might result in significant losses for investors. Traditional accounting uses

conservative approaches to asset valuation, systematically undervaluing intangible

assets creating an excessive cost of capital (Baruch 2003).

In most firms, the financial information does not provide a fair reflection of the true

impact of intangibles on their balance sheet, earnings and cash flow. “For many firms,

managerial information is still largely driven by the external financial accounting

system, which does not require the disclosure of all intangibles” (Doppegieter and

Zoller 2006).

Failure to recognise the true value of a company’s intangible assets, which have the

potential to generate large profit, causes an increase in the investors’ risk perception.

This reduced investor confidence results in a higher required rate of return.

Consequentially, it is more difficult for these firms to finance R&D and other future

investments to create tomorrow’s intangible assets.

Undervaluation and improper disclosure of intangible assets may cause some

profitable future projects to be overlooked.

Several macroeconomic studies have shown that R&D investment in the United

States is about half the optimal level, from a social point of view. Baruch (2003)

reviewed the financial reports of some firms and found that most companies did not

disclose spending on research and development. Enron did not account for R&D

expenditure in its last three annual reports. “To say that Enron had huge intangible


assets that somehow disappeared blurs the difference between market value and

book value due to "hype," with the difference due to the creation of a true intangible

asset” (Baruch 2003).

Why are investments in intangible assets measured incorrectly by management?

The nature of intangible assets deems them difficult to estimate as determined by

the conservative accounting methods favoured by management. Secondly,

management sometimes look to manipulate some ratios (e.g. return-on-assets and

return-on-equity) to appease current investors.

Considering Enron, it was portrayed as an innovative model of a new economy

enterprise. The enormity of this and other organisational failures has “prompted

questions concerning the validity of intellectual capital as a significant element in

organisations, since it can be so easily manipulated” (Chatzkel 2003).

The other issue with undervaluing intangible assets is the risk of hostile takeover.

This may increase if external shareholders lose confidence in management and

choose to sell. If external shareholders do not recognise the company’s true value of

its intangible assets, this would affect future investment and the company would

become a target for takeover.

Intangible assets are fundamental sources of competitive advantage that must be

identified, measured and controlled in order to ensure the efficient management of

corporations. There is a consistent relationship between most intangible

investments and subsequent earnings and value creation in business corporations.

Undervaluation of intangible assets would result in a higher cost of capital and an

increased risk of forced acquisition.


3. How do we value intangible assets?

The three key methods of intangible asset valuation below are identified by

Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC (2004).

3.1 Cost based

One way of measuring intangible assets is to consider the cost of creating the asset.

The cost based method may also be called Purchase Price Allocation (PPA) (Condon

and O’Rourke 2008). An example is the cost of establishing a brand. To use this

method of valuation, one would restate actual launching expenditure in current

terms. When the historical costs are not available it is possible to estimate re-

creation costs. The challenge in estimation is that brands by their nature are unique

and not easily comparable or replicable. This would mean that any calculation based

on comparison of the creation costs of another brand would be flawed.

The cost based calculation represents only the cost of creation not the current value

of the brand and therefore should only be used as a comparison to double check

other approaches, such as income based techniques.

3.2 Market based

A second way of measuring intangible assets is a market based valuation. The

assumption behind this technique is that there are comparable market transactions,

comparable company transactions or stock market quotations. Valuations can be

based on the sale of comparable individual assets or whole companies where

detailed information is made available to the public arena.

As discussed in the cost based technique, in reality there are few directly comparable

transactions. Even when market transactions of intangible assets exist, details are

commonly not published and therefore this further challenges the comparison

technique.

Because of the limited opportunity to compare market transactions of intangible

assets due to the uniqueness of intangible assets and limited accessibility of


transaction details, this technique should also only be used as a comparison to

double check other approaches, such as income based techniques.

3.3 Income based

Gagliardi & Levine (2006) state “valuing intangible assets can best be done by

evaluating how much they contribute to, or in their absence, to what extent they

would diminish the commercial value of a product or business”. This quote describes

the income based methods of which there are two approaches to valuing intangible

assets, royalty relief and economic use.

3.3.1 Royalty relief

This technique of valuing intangible assets assumes a hypothetical situation where a

company does not possess a particular intangible asset and needs to licence one, for

example a brand. In the situation where a brand is licensed from an external party, a

royalty rate based on turnover is charged. When a company owns an intangible asset

such as a brand, royalty rates are irrelevant, thereby relieving the company from

paying a royalty, which explains the term ‘royalty relief’.

The method of calculating royalty relief is estimating future sales and consequently

applying a market appropriate royalty fee to determine the income resulting from

future brand royalties. Once the estimated future royalties are calculated, it is

necessary to discount the cash flow at an appropriate discount rate to determine the

net present value which is the value of the intangible asset.

An advantage of this technique is the many examples of royalties that can be used

for comparison. This is particularly pertinent in the licensing of brands.

3.3.2 Economic use

A final technique for valuing intangible assets is the economic use approach which

considers the return actually achieved by owning the intangible asset now and into

the future.


In looking at brands, the economic use valuation assumes that the brand ensures

security of demand. As an example, a manufacturer without a brand may enjoy the

same production efficiencies, sales volumes, prices and business model as a branded

manufacturer. Whilst in the short-term they may have comparable profits, but in the

long-term the non-branded manufacturers customers are less ‘locked in’.

A key point to note is this technique’s dependence upon the accuracy of future sales

and earnings projections. The process of calculating a valuation based on economic

use is to use the future earnings attributable to the intangible asset after considering

the costs of the tangible assets employed and tax at a notional rate. The resulting

earnings attributable to the intangible asset are then discounted back and NPV

represents the current value of the intangible asset.

In the case of brand valuations, they are based on three to five year earning

forecasts. In addition, an annuity is calculated on the final year of earnings to reflect

the assumption that a brand continues effectively into perpetuity. This is a

reasonable assumption as brand rights can be owned in perpetuity with value

attached for decades.


3.4 Table - Identification and Valuation Methods of Specific

Intangible Assets

Categories Examples Valuation Method

1. Market-related

intangible assets Trademarks, trade names, service

marks, newspaper mastheads,

internet domain names, non-

competition agreements

Income and Market Method

2. Customer-related

intangible assets Customer lists, order or

production backlogs, customer

contracts and customer

relationships

Income Method

3. Artistic-related

intangible assets Plays, operas, ballets, books,

magazines, newspapers, pictures,

photographs


4. Contract-based

intangible assets Licensing and royalty agreements,

advertising, construction, service

or supply agreements, lease

agreements, franchise

agreements, employment

contracts


5. Technology-based

intangible assets Patented technology, computer

software, unpatented technology

(know-how), databases, trade

secrets, processes and recipes

Cost Method

NB: Adapted from Quilligan (2006)


4. Intangible Assets and IFRS

4.1 IFRS Origins and Reason for Being

Globalisation is increasing at a rapid pace. “As cross border financial activity

increases, capital markets become more dependent on each other...as financial

markets become more interdependent, there is a greater need for the development

of internationally recognised and accepted standards dealing with capital market

regulation” (Mirza, Holt, Orrell 2006, quoting Philippe Richard, IOSCO Secretary

General)

IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) is all about providing transparent

and comparable information in financial reports. Previously, companies preferred to

lump all intangible assets as goodwill. Under the old GAAP (Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles) reporting systems, which varied from country to country,

goodwill represented the excess of the purchase price over the tangible assets

acquired. The IFRS (or, more pointedly IFRS 3 – Business Combinations) requires that

companies interpret the components that make up this goodwill into identifiable

intangible assets and be amortized where possible.

As Wayne Upton, International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Director of

Research noted in 2003 “It (intangible asset identification) was always there, but

nobody ever did it, as it was easier to lump it all together as goodwill. The problem

was that there was no tax benefit to separating intangibles out, so why bother?”

(Investor Relations Business 2003)

IFRS reporting is particularly useful during mergers and acquisitions as it unearths

the previously hidden value in a company’s balance sheet. This uniform reporting

standard is particularly useful for investors, creditors, financial analysts and any

other user of financial statements.


The International Organisation of Securities Commission (IOSCO) plays a major role

in helping set the international financial standards. It is still up to each subsequent

country’s finance body to endorse these standards. The IASB is the body in charge of

setting IFRS and works closely with individual country financial bodies.

4.2 Structure and Governance of IASB

Trustees

• no involvement in standard-setting activities

• responsible for broad strategic issues, budget, operating procedures and

appointing members of IASB

The Board

• responsible for all standard-setting activities

• 14 members around the world (selected by Trustees)

• usually meets once a month

Standards advisory council

• 40 members (appointed by Trustees)

• provides a forum to discuss standards and provide advice to the board

International Financial Interpretations Committee (IFRIC)

• in charge of developing interpretive guidance on accounting issues not

specifically dealt with in IFRS

• appointed by Trustees

International Accounting Standards (IAS), now renamed IFRS are gaining acceptance

worldwide with most major countries now conformed to the new standards (U.S. to

fully conform by 2009). In 2002 the European Union (EU) adopted legislation that

requires listed companies to apply IFRS in their statements. By 2005 more than 70

countries had adopted the new standard, or developed standards that mirror IFRS.


4.3 How does IFRS work? (specifically for intangible assets)?

The principle issues involved relate to the nature and recognition of intangible assets,

determining their costs, and assessing the amortization and impairment losses that

need to be amortized.

4.3.1 List of IFRS

IFRS 1, First-time adoption of IFRS

IFRS 2, Share-Based Payments

IFRS 3, Business Combinations

IFRS 4, Insurance Contracts

IFRS 5, Noncurrent Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations

IFRS 6, Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources

IFRS 7, Financial Instruments: Disclosures

...IFRS incorporates existing individual IAS (International Accounting Standards).

IFRS 3, Business Combinations, requires all business combinations to be accounted

for using a purchase method and specifies how the purchase method is to be applied

(Australian Accounting Standard Fact Sheet 2008).

A subset of IFRS 3 is IAS 38 (AASB138) – Intangible Assets. It specifies that the

following take place when compiling a company’s financial reports:

• recognise the intangible

• determine costs

• assess amortization and impairment losses

In turn, all the following elements must exist:

• Identifiability (i.e. separable from the entity, or arises from contractual or

legal rights) to distinguish it from goodwill.

• Control over a resource by the entity

• Existence of future economic benefits (Use of IP can reduce operating costs

instead of generating revenue)


An intangible asset is recognised if; it is probable that the future economic benefits

attributable to the asset will flow to the entity and the cost of an asset can be

measured.

In contrast, expenditure incurred in relation to research projects as well as internally

generated IP, must be taken off the balance sheet under IFRS.

4.3.2 Amortization of an intangible asset

Finite life – If the intangible asset has a finite life, amortization is evened out over

this period

Infinite life – If the shelf life of an intangible asset has no finite end, it can’t be

amortized, however, it must be reviewed annually and changes in value estimates

are to be accounted for

An intangible asset is “derecognised” on disposal or when no future benefits are

expected from its use or disposal. The gain or loss is the difference between any net

disposal proceeds and the carrying amount of the asset. This amount will show up on

the P&L and any gains are not to be displayed as revenue.

Intangible assets may be contained on or in a tangible item (e.g. software, films,

licensing agreements). Judgment must therefore be undertaken to determine which

the more significant element is.

e.g. a machine incorporating software that cannot be operated without the

software. This would be listed under PP&E (IAS16). However, add-in software

(such as antivirus or report writing software) which isn’t necessary to run the

asset is therefore separated out and accounted for under IAS 38 (Mirza et al

2006).


4.4 IFRS Effects

The adoption of IFRS has and will have a considerable impact on the recognition and

valuation of intangible assets.

Since IFRS has been introduced worldwide, the ratio of intangible assets has

undergone a market shift as the value of intangible assets has begun to outweigh

that of tangible assets (Lawn, James, Clark 2005). Based on these trends,

management of intangible assets will drive shareholder value.

There will be significant differences between the balance sheets of companies that

have organically grown and those that have grown through acquisitions, as a

consequence of the different accounting for acquired versus internally generated

intangible assets (Lawn et al 2005). An acquisition will result in the identification and

recognition of separate intangible asset at fair value, whereas an organically grown

company may only be able to recognise the intangible asset at cost, which may differ

from fair value.

IFRS has also shown signs of increasing earnings (and therefore, some valuations)

once transposed from GAAP. A U.S. study in 2008 of 137 companies that reported in

both GAAP and IFRS found that 63% showed greater earning under IFRS than GAAP

reports (Henry 2008). As a result, it is suggested (Wong, Wong 2005) that valuations

should revise their EBIT and earnings based multiples downward to account and

adjust for this induced effect “in order to prevent over-valuing acquisitions”.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this anomaly is indeed taking place in the

U.S. Many companies’ GAAP stockholders’ EPS have been much lower that the PPS

traded on stock exchanges. For example, Microsoft claimed stockholders’ equity of

about $68 billion in 2003, yet the market value on the stock exchange was over $240

billion (Foster, Fletcher, Stout 2003). Many financial experts claimed then that GAAP

was no longer an accurate measure of company value as they “prohibit the

recognition of intangible assets” (Foster 2003).


IFRS will help to unlock and maximise the value in a company’s IP. Global

opportunities are significant, as IFRS eases previous reporting burdens that existed

when attempting to float on foreign markets. For example, up until 2009, all

companies that are listed on the U.S. stock exchange are subject to the SEC’s

reporting standards which require that all companies prepare financial statements

according to U.S. GAAP (Henry, Lin, Yang 2007). This has hindered foreign companies

to do so, as U.S. GAAP standards vary greatly from the IFRS already adopted

throughout most of the world.

The harmonisation of financial reporting around the world will help raise the

confidence of investors, now able to compare “apples with apples”. This greater

confidence will also translate to a lower cost-of-capital from a company perspective

(Henry et al 2007). Furthermore, the transparency afforded by IFRS will allow

analysts unprecedented insights into the performance of an acquired business

(Stephenson, McPhee 2005).


5. Recommendations

As a result of the prior analysis and discussion, the authors present the following

recommendations to entrepreneurs.

Step 1 Identify the separate intangible assets

Step 2 Choose the appropriate method/s of evaluation

Step 3 Double check the amount by repeating the valuation with a different

method (if appropriate)

Step 4 Determine if the intangible asset has a finite life, if so amortize the

asset

Step 5 Disclose the accurate amount on the P&L and/or Balance sheet,

according to IFRS rules


6. References

Anson, Weston; Drews, David, The Intangible Assets Handbook: Maximizing Value

from Intangible Assets, American Bar Association, 2007

Australian Accounting Standards Fact Sheet, AASB 138 Intangible Assets - Adopted

from IAS 38 Intangible Assets, CPA Australia, December 31 2007

Brady, R; Beach, R & Skmorucha, K, Determining and preserving the assets of dot-

coms, Delaware journal of corporate law, 2003

Cassidy, John, Dot.Con: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, New York and London: Allen

Lane, 2002

Cassidy, John, Dot.con: How America Lost its Mind and Its Money in the Internet Era,

An imprint of Harper Colin, 2002

Chatzkel, Jay, The collapse of Enron and the role of intellectual capital, Journal of

Intellectual Capital MCB UP Ltd, 2003

Condon, Fergus; O’Rourke, Gary, Valuation Issues arising from business combinations

under IFRS, Accountancy Ireland, Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2008

Doppegieter, J; & Zoller, M., Managing Intangible Assets to Leverage Shareholder

Value Working Paper, Bruchsal, December 2003

Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC., Brand and other intangible asset valuation

techniques, Managing Intellectual Property, 2004

Foster, Benjamin P.; Fletcher, Robin; Stout, William D., Valuing Intangible Assets, CPA

Journal, vol. 73 issue 10, October 2003

Gagliardi, T; Levine, P., How to value intangible assets, Fairfield County Business

Journal, April 17 2006


García-Ayuso, Manuel, Factors explaining the inefficient valuation of intangibles,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal MCB UP Ltd, 2003

García-Ayuso, Manuel, Intangibles: Lessons from the past and a look into the future,

Journal of Intellectual Capital MCB UP Ltd, 2003

Henry, David, A Better Way to Keep the Books?, Business Week, issue 4099,

September 15 2008

Henry, Elaine; Lin, Stephen W; Yang, Ya-wen, Weak Signal: Evidence of IFRS and U.S

GAAP Convergence from Nokia’s 20-F Reconciliations, Issues in Accounting Education,

Vol.22 No. 4, November 2007

International Financial Reporting Standards, IFRS 3 Business Combinations, CPA

Australia, January 1 2008

Investor Relations Business, News & Strategies for Financial Communications

Professionals, Thomson Media, vol. 8 issue 5, March 10, 2003

Lawn, Craig; James, Mike; Clark, Ian, The intangible asset wave of opportunity in

Australia, International Tax Review - Intellectual Property, Dec/Jan 2005

Lev, Baruch, Remarks on the measurement, valuation, and reporting of intangible

assets, Economic Policy Review - Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2003

Lukovitz, Karlene, Hidden Brand bubble Threatens to Burst, Warn Analysts, Marketing

Daily, Oct 13 2008

Mirza, Abbas; Holt, Graham J.; Orrell, Magnus, International Financial Reporting

Standards (IFRS) workbook and guide, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2006

Nearon, Bruce, Intangbile assets: Framing the Debate, The CPA journal, New York

State Society of Certified Public Accountants, 2004

Plakalo, T, Untangling intangibles, MIS Australia, February 1 2006


Quilligan, Laura, Intangible Assets identification and valuation under IFRS 3, The

Journals Accountancy Ireland, June 2006

Reilly, R; Schweihs, R, Valuing Intangible Assets, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-

Publication Data, 1998

Stephenson, Heather; McPhee, Doug, Acquiring Companies: knowing your IAS from

your elbow, accountancymagazine.com, July 2005

Wong, Jilnaught; Wong, Norman, The impact of Not Amortizing Intangible Assets on

Valuation Multiples, Pacific Accounting Review, vol 17 no.1, June 2005

Documents

Valuing Intangible Assetsmyobatlas-production-apac.s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com...The three key methods of intangible asset valuation below are identified by Euromoney Institutional