Intangible Assets and the Effects of AASB 138CO5123 Group
Assignment Names: Xinyu Chen and Shannon Frick Student IDs:
11906467 and 11159183 Subject Name: Advanced Issues in Accounting
Subject Code: CO5123 Subject Coordinator: David Smorfitt Due Date:
5th May, 2009
11906467, 11159183
Table of
ContentsAbstract......................................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Intangible Assets: An
Overview.............................................................................................3
Accounting for Intangible Assets Pre- and Post- January
2005.............................................4 Changes to
Accounting Treatment Caused by AASB
138.....................................................6
Independent Reports on the Effects of AASB
138.....................................................................6
Australian Accounting Review Report
2008..........................................................................6
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report on Australian Intangible Assets
2007................................8 Student Investigation of Two
Industry-Dissimilar ASX-listed
Entities.................................8 How Intangible Assets
Affect the Balance
Sheet................................................................9
Proportion of Intangible Assets to Total
Assets..................................................................9
Debt
Ratio.........................................................................................................................11
Return on Assets
(ROA)...................................................................................................12
Asset
Turnover..................................................................................................................13
Further Industry
Comparison............................................................................................13
Conclusion................................................................................................................................14
References................................................................................................................................16
Appendices...............................................................................................................................18
Appendix A: Technology One Limited Balance Sheet
2007/2008.......................................18 Appendix B:
Technology One Limited Income Statement
2007/2008................................19 Appendix C: Dominos
Pizza Limited Balance Sheet
2007/2008........................................19 Appendix C:
Dominos Pizza Limited Balance Sheet
2007/2008........................................20 Appendix D:
Dominos Pizza Limited Income Statement
2007/2008.................................21 Appendix E: Peer
Reviews...................................................................................................22
2
11906467, 11159183
AbstractIntangible assets have been given a lot of attention by
accounting professionals and other parties involved with their
financial reporting lately, due to the difficulty they present in
being precisely valued, classified and accounted for. For some
companies, intangible assets make up the majority of their total
companys assets; for other companies, intangible assets are very
small part of their total assets. In either case, accounting
treatment of intangible assets has seen some interesting twists
occur in the accounting world, especially after the introduction of
AASB 138 Intangible Assets in 2005. This paper aims to expose some
of the new ways intangible assets are being accounted for in
financial reporting regarding intangible assets since the inception
of the new standard.
IntroductionIntangible Assets: An OverviewIntangible assets are
those assets that are identifiable, have no physical substance, and
are non-monetary. Companies frequently use their resources, or
incur liabilities, upon acquiring development, maintenance or
enhancement of intangible assets (CPA Australia, 2009a). Some
common examples of intangible assets include software, patents,
copyrights, motion picture films, customer lists, mortgage
servicing rights, fishing licenses, import quotas, franchises,
customer or supplier relationships, customer loyalty, market share
and marketing rights (CPA Australia, 2009a). Common headings that
intangible assets fall under include systems, technology, licenses,
intellectual property, market knowledge, trademarks (including
brand names and publishing titles), copyright, franchises, patents,
marketing rights and customer lists (Government of Western
Australia Department of Treasury and Finance [GWADTF], 2009).
Accounting treatment for intangible assets is outlined in the
Australian Accounting Standards Boards standard AASB 138 Intangible
Assets, which was originally introduced on January 1 2005, along
with 40 other standards in an initiative to comply with
International Financial Reporting Standards. Under AASB 138, an
intangible asset must be identifiable, proven to give future
economic benefits that of which are in control by the entity, and
be able3
11906467, 11159183 to be valued at a specific cost. (GWADTF,
2009) Expenses incurred on acquiring, developing and enhancing
intangible resources (for example, new systems, processes, market
knowledge or intellectual property) cannot be recognised as
intangible assets unless an asset can be separately identified from
these expenses and control of the asset is with the company. AASB
138 lists important exceptions to intangible assets that include
internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer
lists and similar items (GWADTF, 2009). AASB 138 specifies that the
amortisation of an intangible asset with a finite useful life
involves systematically allocating a depreciable amount over an
intangible assets useful life in a manner that best represents the
expected consumption of the assets future economic benefits (p. 107
and p. 108). Those intangible assets with indefinite lives are, of
course, not to be amortised, seeing as how there is no foreseeable
limit to the period over which they are expected to generate net
cash inflows. All intangible assets that are fully amortised or
have no future economic benefits being derived from their use must
be derecognised on disposal, and any gains or losses on this
derecognition must be included in the income statement (p. 113).
Intangible assets are commonly confused with goodwill. Goodwill is
different from intangible assets in that it cannot be identified,
measured, or separated, nor can it be determined if future economic
benefits that are attributable to it will flow to the company. In
order to be identifiable, an intangible asset must be separable, or
come about from a contractual or legal right. Separable assets are
capable of being separated from the entity, and have the ability to
be acquired, transferred, rented, licensed or exchanged. Thus,
Goodwill does not fit the requirements of identifiability and
separability, as do intangible assets (GWADTF, 2009)
Accounting for Intangible Assets Pre- and Post- January 2005On
January 1st, 2005, Australian entities made a change from AGAAP
standards to AIRFRS compliancy for their 2005/2006 financial year
reporting periods. This applied to the public sector, along with
most reporting entities and their subsidiaries. The AIRFRS
compliance included the accounting standard AASB 138 Intangible
Assets. Prior to the inception AASB 138, there was no single
specific standard in place for the accounting of intangible assets.
AASB 138 replaced the existing requirements that applied to
intangible assets, which were (GWADTF, 2009):4
11906467, 11159183
AAS 4/ AASB 1021 Depreciation AAS 10/AASB 1010 Recoverable
Amount of Non-Current Assets AAS 13/AASB 1011 Accounting for
Research and Development AAS 18/AASB 1013 Accounting for Goodwill
AAS 21/AASB 1015 Acquisition of Assets AASB 1041 Revaluation of
Non-Current Assets Several Urgent Issues Group abstracts to take
into account International Financial Reporting Standards (Parker,
2004).
The AASB 138 standard applies to all intangible assets except
for those intangible assets that are already covered by other AASB
standards, financial assets, and mineral rights and expenditure on
the exploration, development and extraction of mineral resources.
The other AASB standards that cover these classifications of
intangible assets outside of AASB 138 are shown below in Table 1:
AASB Standard Introduced 01/01/2005 AASB102 Inventories and AASB
111 Construction Contracts : AASB 112 Income Taxes: AASB 117 Leases
: AASB 3 Business Combinations AASB 5 Non-Current Assets Held for
Sale AASB 136 Impairment of Assets Application to Intangible Assets
Intangible assets held for sale in the ordinary course of business
Deferred tax assets involving intangibles Leases involving
intangibles When Goodwill is acquired in a business combination
Intangible assets held for sale Intangibles are assessed for
impairment at each reporting dateTable 1: AASB Standards Other than
AASB 138 for Treating Intangible Assets after 1/1/05
Changes to Accounting Treatment Caused by AASB 138The key
differences from the requirements of the previous standards for
intangible assets listed above and the AASB 138 Intangible Assets
standard include the following (GWADTF, 2009):
5
11906467, 11159183 An intangible asset must be separable (i.e.
capable of being separated from the entity and have the ability to
be exchanged, sold, licensed, transferred or rented) or come from
contractual or other legal rights.
Research expenditure of all kinds must be expensed Development
expenditure must meet specific criteria before it can be
capitalised. Internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing
titles, customer lists and items similar in substance must no
longer be recognised. Intangible assets are only permitted for
revaluation where there is an active market to determine fair
value. An intangible asset is classified as having an either finite
or indefinite life. Intangible assets with indefinite lives must
not be amortised.Computer software is considered an intangible
asset if it is not integral to the operation of related
hardware.
Independent Reports on the Effects of AASB 138Australian
Accounting Review Report 2008A study on the effects of the
introduction of AASB 138 Intangible Assets by the Australian
Accounting Review in 2008 revealed that the debt-to-equity ratio
for 23 ASXlisted Australian companies that were assessed as having
to derecognise internally generated intangible assets under AASB
138 changed significantly between the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006
financial years as a result (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008).
However, several other expected changes that were predicted by
numerous professionals and touted in the media as causing
write-offs totalling in the billions did not occur in the year
following the introduction of the AASB 138 standard. The report
compared predicted changes to actual changes both before and after
the adoption of AASB 138, with interesting results. Key financial
ratios used in the report on intangible assets by the Australian
Accounting Review included Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets
(ROA), and Debt-toEquity Ratio (DER). The most important finding
from the report was that, despite the variance across
circumstances, it was only the DER that showed significant
differences in the selected companies after the introduction of
AASB 138, but not ROE or ROA. The anticipated significant impact
anticipated by analysts and investors from AASB 138 being6
11906467, 11159183 applied to intangible assets was in fact not
so significant (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008, p. 253).
Table 2: Results of the Absolute Changes of ROE, ROA and DER of
the Selected Firms (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008).
Table 2above presents two sets of non-parametric tests conducted
by the Australian Accounting Review of the differences between
measures of intangible assets and key financial ratios calculated
or projected under different reporting requirements. As can be
seen, the DER value has a very large standard deviation, meaning
that the change in DER value after the inception of AASB 138 was
very significant (Note: DER ADJAIFRS in Table 2 refers to the
expected DER). The question of why the anticipated impacts of AASB
138 were not fully realised may be answered by the fact that many
entities simply did not derecognise their intangible assets as
projected. The report found that the distinction between internally
generated intangible assets and those purchased at cost was not
communicated to users very clearly in the preadoption period of
AASB 138! As a result of this confusion, many entities 'revealed'
in the 2005/06 reporting period that their intangible assets had
been purchased at cost, and had not applied derecognition (Cheung,
Evans. and Wright, 2008, p. 254).
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report on Australian Intangible Assets
20077
11906467, 11159183 Research done on the effects of AASB 138 by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that $45 billion of identifiable
intangible assets and $84 billion of goodwill was recorded on the
balance sheets of ASX 200 companies in the 2005/2006 period -
increases in value of 26% and 47% respectively. The large increase
in goodwill was attributed to companies reclassifying roughly $10
billion worth of assets to goodwill after the transition to AIFRS.
The largest holders of intangible holders were, not surprisingly,
the Media, Consumer Staples and Telecommunications industries
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2004). The report by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers also found that growth expectations and
bigger deals had lead to goodwill representing a larger proportion
of total purchases in 2005/2006, while the proportion of
identifiable intangible assets decreased. The average useful life
of intangible assets decreased by an incredible 9 years, decreasing
from 20 years in 2004/2005 to 11 years in 2005/2006. The amount of
reported intangible assets that had indefinite lives also declined
from 45% in 2004/2005 to 33% in 2005/2006. Profits were more
volatile as a result of all these changes (PriceWaterhouseCoopers,
2004).
Student Investigation of Two Industry-Dissimilar ASX-listed
EntitiesIn order to test how intangible assets appear on a companys
balance sheet, along with their affect on a companys income
statement, our group chose two ASX-listed companies from different
sectors to compare: Technology One (ASX:TNE) and Dominos Pizza
(ASX:DOM). Technology One develops, markets, sells, implements and
supports its own software solutions to various organisations in
Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the United Kingdom. Dominos Pizzas
company sector, on the other hand, is in the consumer services
sector of fast food the company is famous for making and selling
pizza to customers in their market areas, including Australia, New
Zealand, France, Belgium and the Netherlands (Aspect Huntley
DatAnalysis, 2009).
How Intangible Assets Affect the Balance Sheet From Technology
Ones balance sheets we have found that intangible assets and
goodwill, which are listed together under one line item in
Non-Current Assets, is $17,268,000 in 2008 and $9,592,000 in 2007.
Due to the fact that we need to examine the amount of intangible
assets alone and not goodwill, we have not used these numbers, but
instead used8
11906467, 11159183 the note information to find the value of
intangible assets. From the notes regarding intangible assets and
goodwill in Technology Ones Annual Reports, we observed that the
intellectual property - also called intangible assets - is
$2,547,000 for 2008 and $128,000 for 2007. Therefore, increased
intangible assets during 2008/2007 equals to
$2,547,000$128,000/$128,000=1890%. From Dominos pizzas balance
sheet, the cost of other intangible assets for 2008 was $1,726,000,
but nearly half of this cost for 2007($968,000). Increased
intangible assets during 2008/2007 equals to
$1,726,000-$968,000/$968,000=78.3%. It can be concluded that
Technology One Limited has many more intangible assets than Dominos
Pizza, probably because improvements, updates and innovations in
the software industry happen very quickly. If Technology One and
other software companies want to keep their business alive and
compete with other software companies, then they need to spend a
large proportion of cash on research and development for new
versions of software and other projects in the future.
Proportion of Intangible Assets to Total Assets Technology One
Limited: For 2008: intangible assets%= intangible assets/total
assets=$2,547,000/$73,422,000=3.47% For 2007: intangible assets%=
intangible assets/total assets=$128,000/54,928,000=0.23% We can
conclude that percentage of intangible assets increased 15.1 times
from 0.23% in 2007 to 3.47% in 2008. There are two main reasons
could explain why intangible assets increase so much in 2008. First
of all in November 2007, the company purchased Enterprise Content
Management, the costs of which were capitalised as intangible
assets. Secondly, in August 2008, the Outcome Manager Technology
had been acquired by Technology One Limited, which has been
provisionally classified as an intangible asset or intellectual
property. (Come from annual report p58, p28, p9). Due to the fact
that the companys financial reporting date is 30 September in each
year, these two acquisitions should therefore be included in the
2008 financial annual report. This explains why there are so many
differences on the term of intangible assets between the financial
years of 2008 and 2007.9
11906467, 11159183 Dominos Pizza: For 2008: intangible assets%=
intangible assets/total assets=$1,726,000/$142,157,000=1.21% For
2007: Intangible assets%= intangible assets/total
assets=$968,000/131,613,000=0.73% From the above calculation we
know that intangible assets increased by 1.7 times in 2008 compared
with the year before that. Dominos Pizzas intangible assets did not
increase dramatically like those of Technology One Limited,
highlighting the fact that these two companies operate in different
sectors, and have contrasting proportions of assets that are in the
form of intangibles. We can get an idea from the balance sheet that
intangible assets are classified as noncurrent assets, which means
total assets or total non-current assets go up when added with
intangible assets. Some ratios will be changed, such as debt ratio,
return on assets, return on net assets, and asset turnover because
they are all related to total assets or total non-current
assets.
10
11906467, 11159183 Debt RatioChart 1 Debt ratio=Toal Liabitliy /
Total Assets 2008 Total liability$000 Total Assets$000 TA no IA DR
with IA DR no IA TechnologyOne 22,908 73,422 70,875 31.20% 32.30%
Domino's Pizza 62,903 142,157 140,431 44.20% 44.80% 2007 Total
liability$000 Total Assets$000 TA no IA DR with IA DR no IA
TechnologyOne 16,822 54,928 54,800 30.60% 30.70% Domino's Pizza
64,430 131,613 130,645 49% 49.30% Debit ratio growth%(with IA)
TechnologyOne 1.96 Domino's Pizza -9.8 Note: TA=Total Assets,
IA=Intangible Assets, DR=Debit raio
Table 3: Debt Ratio of Technology One Limited and Dominos Pizza,
2007 & 2008
Technology One Limiteds Debt Ratio was 31.20% in 2008 if
intangible assets were included in total assets, as seen in Table
3above. However, without intangible asset, debt ratio increases to
32.30% in 2008. While 30.6% Debt ratio when include intangible as
asset, 30.7% debt ratio when exclude intangible as asset in 2007.
Debt ratio grows 1.96% during 2007 and 2008 when treat intangible
as assets. Dominos Pizzas Debt Ratio was 44.20% in 2008 when we
added intangibles into total assets. Nevertheless, when not
considering intangibles as asset, the debt ratio for 2008 grew to
44.8%. For 2007, the debt ratio was 49% if treating intangibles as
assets, or a 49.3% debt ratio if intangibles are not treated as
assets. Debt ratio decreases 9.8% from 2007 to 2008. Our
calculations of Debt Equity on Technology One and Dominos Pizza
show that intangible assets for both companies had a positive
effect on debt ratio between 2007 and 2008, since the smaller debt
ratio means the companies performed better in relation to debt.
11
11906467, 11159183 Comparatively, Technology One had a smaller
debt ratio that did Dominos Pizza, and its growth of debt ratio was
much quicker than that of Dominos Pizza.
Return on Assets (ROA)Return on Asset= Net Income/ Total Assets
2008 TA($000) 17,229 11,834
NI ($000) TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza
73,422 142,157
TA no IA($000) ROA with IA ROA no IA 70,875 0.234657187
0.243089947 140,431 0.083245989 0.084269143
NI($000) TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza
2007 TA($000) 14,781 9,129
54,928 131,613
TA no IA($000) ROA with IA ROA no IA 54,800 0.269097728
0.269726277 130,654 0.069362449 0.069871569
TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza Note: NI= Net Income
ROA growth with IA -0.127985253 0.200159305 TA=Toal Asset IA=
Intangible Asset
Table 4: ROA of Technology One Limited and Dominos Pizza, 2007
& 2008
From the Table 4, we can conclude that Technology One had a
higher ROA than Dominos Pizza did in two years. However, Technology
Ones ROA decreased 12.7% from 2007 to 2008, while the ROA of
Dominos Pizza grew 20%. Intangible assets have a slightly negative
impact on the ROA, because for both companies the ROA ratio
decreased in two years when intangibles were added to total assets.
Furthermore, the companies intangible assets will reduce their ROA
and tell investors that the firms use of its assets and control of
its expenses to generate an acceptable rate of return may be
altered negatively as intangible assets are recognised.
12
11906467, 11159183
Asset TurnoverAsset Turnover= Net Sales/Total Assets 2008 SR
($000) SE ($000) NS($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) AT with IAAT no
IA TechnologyOne 108,491 11,880 96,611 73,422 70,875 1.315832
1.363118 Domino's Pizza 165,768 12,811 152,957 142,157 140,431
1.075972 1.089197 2007 SR ($000) SE ($000) NS($000) TA($000) TA no
IA($000) AT with IAAT no IA TechnologyOne 76,823 9,058 67,765
54,928 54,800 1.233706 1.236588 Domino's Pizza 171,579 17,446
154,133 131,613 130,654 1.171108 1.179704 AT growth with IA
0.066568395 -0.081235377
TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza
Table 5: Asset Turnover of Technology One Limited and Dominos
Pizza, 2007 & 2008
It can seem from Table 5 that Technology One has a higher asset
turnover than Dominos Pizza, which grows by about 6.66% during 2008
and 2007. Asset turnover dropped slightly for both companies when
including intangible assets as total assets during these two years,
which means intangible assets have a negative impact on the asset
turnover ratio, since the higher the asset turnover, the better the
return that the company can produce.
Further Industry Comparison For the sake of comparison, our
group chose two other competitors that had similar operations and
profits to see if our results for Technology One and Dominos Pizza
were similar. The competitor we chose for Technology One was
InfoMedia Limited (ASX:IFM), whose main business involves building
information management systems for automobile manufacturers and oil
companies. The competitor chosen for Dominos Pizza was Retail Food
Group Limited (ASX: RFG), who are the holders of famous franchises
in Australiasuch as Brumbys, Donut King, BBs Caf and Michels
Patisserie. The results for the Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover
ratios for these competitors are included below in Table 6, along
with the same ratios for Technology One and Dominos Pizza.
2007/2008 Financial Year Competitor Comparison
13
11906467, 11159183Debt Ratio No Intangibles 0.3230 0.2743 Return
on Assets No Intangibles 0.2431 0.2798 Asset Turnover No
Intangibles 1.3631 1.1465
w/ Company Technology One (ASX: TNE) InfoMedia (ASX: IFM)
Domino's Pizza (ASX: DMP) Retail Food Group Limited (ASX: RFG)
w/
w/
Intangibles 0.3120 0.2710
Intangibles 0.2347 0.2929
Intangibles 1.3158 1.1596
0.4420
0.4480
0.0832
0.0842
1.0760
1.0892
0.5868
3.6782
0.0770
0.4826
0.4624
2.8982
Table 6: Financial Ratios of Technology One Limited, Dominos
Pizza, and Selected Competitors 2007/2008
While InfoMedia Limited showed similarity to Technology One in
each ratio, Retail Food Group Limited had drastic differences in
Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover when compared to Dominos Pizza
and the companys Intangible Assets were not included in the
calculations. Upon further investigation, we found that Retail Food
Groups franchise systems with their subsidiary companies are
veryexpensive intangible assets all of which have indefinite life.
This was a very interesting discovery, but unfortunately one we
cannot investigate further in this report.
ConclusionFrom our own findings and research on contemporary
accounting for intangible assets and the introduction of AASB 138
on January 1st2005, fewer side effects were found than we had
actually anticipated. This may be due to the fact that, after the
inception of AASB 138 during the Australian adoption of IFRS
compliance, many ASX-listed companies may have performed some
creative accounting manoeuvres to have their financial statements
appear favourable to investors and other interests. Those in charge
of financial reporting may have: 1. Reclassified intangible assets
to goodwill, to avoid amortisations and use creative impairment
instead. 2. Reduced the useful life of intangible assets in order
to decrease the value of intangibles more rapidly in an attempt to
avoid the ill effects intangible assets may
14
11906467, 11159183 have on key financial ratios which investors
may rely on, such as Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover. 3.
Aggressively interpret AASB 138 (e.g. twist the meaning of active
market) or purposely misinterpret internally generated assets or
tangible assets in general, in disclosures within company financial
reports. 4. Misinterpreted the classifications (e.g. internally
generated intangible assets).
In any case, it still appears to our group as though there needs
to be further investigation done on AASB 138 and its effects on the
financial reports of Australian entities by Australian accounting
authorities in order to gain a better understanding of these
effects and promote accurate financial reporting of intangible
assets in future.
15
11906467, 11159183
ReferencesAspect Huntley DatAnalysis: Dominos Pizza Enterpreise
Limited. (2009). Retrieved on April 22nd 2009 from the Aspect
Huntley DatAnalysis website at:
http://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/af/company/balancesheetdat?ASXCode=DMP&xtmlicensee=dat
Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis: Technology One Limited. (2009).
Retrieved on April 22nd 2009 from the Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis
website at:
http://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/af/company/balancesheetdat?ASXCode=TNE&xtmlicensee=dat
Australian Securities Exchange: What is GICS?(2009). Retrieved
April 20th 2009 from the Australian Securities Exchange website at:
http://www.asx.com.au/research/indices/gics.htm Chartered
Accountants: AASB 138 Intangible Assets.(2009). Retrieved April
21st2009 from the Chartered Accountants website at:
http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/A121904976 Cheung E., Evans
E. and Wright S. (2009). The Adoption of IFRS in Australia: The
Case of AASB 138 (IAS 38) Intangible Assets. Australian Accounting
Review, Melbourne: September 2008. Vol 18, Issue 3 p. 248. CPA
Australia. (2009a). Accounting Handbook 2009. Pearson Education
Australia, Melbourne, Victoria: Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd. CPA
Australia (2009b). AASB 138 fact sheet. Retrieved on April 20th
from the CPA Australia website at:
http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57FECA3389FE0B/cpa/hs.xsl/872_12821_ENA_HTML.htm
Government of Western Australia Department of Treasury and Finance.
(2009). AASB 138 Intangible Assets Summary. Retrieved on April
23rd2009 from the Government of Western Australia Department of
Treasury and Finance website at:
http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/aasb138.DOC.16
11906467, 11159183
Henderson, Pierson & Herbohn. (2008). Issues in Financial
Accounting (13th Edition).Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education
Australia.
International Accounting Standards Board: Intangible Assets.
(2009). Retrieved April 21st 2009 from the International Accounting
Standards Board website
at:http://www.iasb.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/Intangible+Assets/Intangible+Assets.htm
Parker, K. (2004). The Untouchables. Australasian Business
Intelligence, Dec 10, 2004 pNA. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008).
Intangible Assets Value In The Real World. Retrieved on April 29th,
2009, from the PriceWaterhouseCoopers website at:
http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/7CA088FEB7642C23CA257376007
A2BDC/$file/IntangibleAssets_ValueInTheNewWorld.pdf Schaeffer, B.
and Robins, S. (2008). Valuation of Intangible Assets in Franchise
Companies and Multinational Groups: A Current Issue. Franchise Law
Journal, Winter 2008 v27 i3 p185(8).
17
11906467, 11159183
AppendicesAppendix A: Technology One Limited Balance Sheet
2007/2008
18
11906467, 11159183
Appendix B: Technology One Limited Income Statement
2007/2008
19
11906467, 11159183
Appendix C: Dominos Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008
20
11906467, 11159183
Appendix D: Dominos Pizza Limited Income Statement
2007/200821
11906467, 11159183
22
11906467, 11159183
Appendix E: Peer Reviews
23