Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 1 Valuing Intangible Assets Ben Flavel 2008 (updated 2010)
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 1
Valuing Intangible Assets
Ben Flavel
2008 (updated 2010)
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 2
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 3
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 4
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 5
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 6
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 7
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 8
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 9
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 10
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 11
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 12
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
Income and Market Method
4. Contract-based
intangible assets Licensing and royalty agreements,
advertising, construction, service
or supply agreements, lease
agreements, franchise
agreements, employment
contracts
Income and Market Method
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)
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 13
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 14
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.
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 15
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)
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 16
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).
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 17
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).
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 18
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).
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 19
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 20
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 21
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
Created by Ben Flavel, updated 2010 22
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