Do we need standartiozation in Reporting of Intangible Assets?
My Name is Kirill Kretov and I am working on my Doctoral Research – “Evaluation and Reporting of Intangible Assets (Intellectual Property)”. I have identified various theories and methods on the evaluation of Intangible Assets, origin of goodwill, and measurement of Intellectual Capital and potential. As far as I can judge, all of these theories, concepts and models are more theoretical than practical.
So I contact you today in order to collect your opinion on some points. Your experience which I hope you would be kind enough to share with me will certainly help me in assessing better my thesis. Please may I ask you to take 30 minutes of your precious time to complete the attached questionnaire?
Please, send all your replies to email@example.comThank you for your help and support!
Please read, before you begin the questionnaire.
In this part I would like to share with you my concept of graphical reporting of capital structure that I developed through my research. I find it very applicable for the purpose of fast analysis.
Below you can see the two traditional formats of capital structure reporting: table and hierarch-tree diagram.
Hierarchy tree is generally superior to table representation, because you can visually see the hierarchy of resources. A percent figure next to each block to signify its value within the total capital.
The same capital structure in a format of K.Chart, may look like:
Note, that comments (text blocks) can contain any information (absolute values, descriptions, etc). In the graph below full text comments were replaced with code names
The graph becomes more compact, but information about resources is now masked and can only be decoded by someone who has a decoding table (refers to the first table in this section, column “code”).
‘K.Chart” presents a class of graphs that give a lot more possibilities for capital structure representation than any other type of graphs, because it simply allows more informational dimensions (graphical methods of data representation):
Graphical Comments (Can be of any complexity, but recommended is between 3 and 30 characters)
Below you can see an example of some hypothetic company with almost 200 groups of resources identified on the graph. There you can see different scales, use of full text comments and of code names. Charts that are not marked with “complete” have a size constraint – the total value of group of resources should be minimum 1% of total capital.
Note that the final picture only represents a structure of the sub-sub-element ("Organizational Resources" within "Intangible Assets"). For the total capital structure reporting there should be about 5 graphs like this one. The complete capital structure in a format of opimized hierachy tree can be found here (1400x6345px)
In my experience we have built the capital structure of more than 30000 (thirty thousands) entries, the printed graph was about 16 square meters.
All copyrights reserved by Dr.Kretov Kirill 2009-2016
Standartization of Valuation and Reporting of Intangible Assets (Intellectual Capital)