As an important part of corporate assets, intangible assets have attracted increasing attention due to their huge impact and role on economic development. In recent years, all economically developed countries have strengthened the management of intangible assets and formulated more systematic laws and standards in the accounting and auditing fields to standardize the trading behavior of intangible assets. my country has also recently promulgated and implemented specific accounting standards for "intangible assets", which provides a certain basis for the evaluation of intangible assets. This article intends to discuss several issues that should be paid attention to when evaluating intangible assets.

1. Clarify the purpose of evaluation and the objects of evaluation

Due to their own characteristics, intangible assets generally cannot be used for settlement or mortgage, but serve the internal operations of the enterprise and external investment and transfer. However, there are exceptions such as land use rights and patent rights. When evaluating intangible assets, you must first clarify the purpose of the evaluation, because some intangible assets can only be established under specific evaluation purposes. The most common is the assessment of consolidated goodwill. If the evaluation only involves the intangible assets of a certain enterprise or only involves the transfer and sale of intangible assets and does not involve the issue of merger, then the consolidated goodwill cannot be the object of evaluation.

According to the "Intangible Assets" guidelines, "Intangible assets refer to non-monetary long-term assets without physical form that are held by an enterprise to produce goods, provide services, lease to others, or for management purposes. "After clarifying the purpose of assessment, all intangible assets related to the purpose of assessment that meet the definition should be included in the assessment. However, the intangible nature of intangible assets makes it a key and difficult point in asset assessment, especially for countries." /p>

In the asset evaluation of some enterprises, management authorities often hide intangible assets that are difficult to detect, such as loan rights at preferential interest rates, resulting in a large loss of state-owned assets. Therefore, when evaluating an enterprise's intangible assets, the intangible assets should be registered item by item through inquiries, written evidence, etc., and included in the scope of evaluation objects.

2. Determination of the value carrier of intangible assets

The determination of the value carrier of intangible assets refers to the clear behavioral subjects that rely on the use of intangible assets to obtain economic benefits. The measurement of the profitability of intangible assets is considered from the perspective of specific actors. When evaluating intangible assets, it is crucial to scientifically and reasonably determine the value carrier of the intangible assets. This determination should generally follow the following principles:

l. Principle of attribution. To determine the value carrier of intangible assets, we should first consider whether the value created by the intangible assets can be earned by its owners or users. The attribution principle has two meanings: first, it means that the same intangible asset can be controlled by different entities at the same time; second, it means that the determination of the value carrier should be limited to the controllable and achievable income range of its controlling entity. For example, when the same patent right belongs to both the patent owner and the user (enterprise), when evaluating the patent right of the enterprise, the determination of the value of the patent right can only be limited to the scope of benefits that the enterprise can achieve by using the patent. However, the transfer income or other income obtained by the owner cannot be included in the calculation. Correctly grasping the attribution principle can help prevent overestimation or underestimation of intangible assets.

2. Quantifiable principle. The determination of the value carrier of intangible assets should be limited to quantifiable categories, and the parts that cannot be quantified are not included in the scope of assessing the value of intangible assets. This point is also clearly stipulated in the "Intangible Assets" standards, that is, each intangible asset should be recorded at the acquisition cost, while self-generated goodwill is not regarded as an intangible asset.

3. Principle of reasonable prediction. Compared with tangible assets, the future income of intangible assets is more difficult to predict. Therefore, when determining the value of intangible assets, we can start from the following three aspects: (1) Investigate and analyze the role of intangible assets in the production and operation process; (2) Analyze and identify the remaining useful life of intangible assets; (3) ) Investigate, analyze, and identify the profitability of intangible assets.

3. Selection of intangible asset valuation methods

The valuation methods of intangible assets and tangible assets are basically the same, including the present value of income method, current market price method, and replacement cost. Law, clearing price method. When actually conducting valuation business, valuation methods should be selected flexibly based on specific valuation purposes and conditions.

1. Present value of income method. It determines the value of the assessed asset by measuring the expected future income of the assessed asset and converting it into the present value. The calculation formula is: Asset appraisal value = ∑ (the expected income of the enterprise in the future × the discount coefficient calculated based on the discount rate)

2. Current market price method. The current market price method is an asset evaluation method that uses the current market price as the price standard to determine the asset price. The current price refers to the transaction price or standard of the reference object closest to the asset valuation base date. The lower limit of the fair value of intangible assets can be obtained directly by using the current market price method. Therefore, if there is sufficient sales information on similar intangible assets, the current market price method is a simple and reliable valuation method. Generally, this method is suitable for the evaluation of computer software, land use rights, and concessions.

3. Replacement cost method. The replacement cost method refers to a method that determines the value of the assets being evaluated based on the current full cost of the assets being evaluated minus deductible losses or depreciation when evaluating and measuring assets. Since my country's product factor market is still immature, the objective conditions for applying the current market price method and the present value of income method are not yet fully met. Therefore, the replacement cost method is currently mostly used for asset valuation. In addition, this method can generally only be used for intangible assets for the purpose of cost compensation and the acquisition cost can be calculated separately. Nowadays, technology and computer software are available, but it is not suitable for the value evaluation of intangible assets for the purpose of investment transfer.

4. Clearing price method. It is a method to estimate the value of the appraisal object based on the liquidation price of the asset. It is mainly suitable for asset evaluation in cases of corporate bankruptcy, mortgage, liquidation, etc.

4. Standards for the evaluation of intangible assets

The characteristics of uncertainty and high profitability of intangible assets determine the complexity of the evaluation of intangible assets. In addition, the evaluation of intangible assets in my country has a relatively early start. It is inevitable that there will be some problems in the evening. In response to these problems, we can improve the evaluation of intangible assets from the following two aspects:

1. Standardization of intangible asset evaluation standards. Many countries and regions in the world have formulated unified valuation standards for the valuation of intangible assets. For example, the United States formulated the "American Professional Valuation Practices and Unified Standards" in 1987, which stipulates the methods, time, performance and special characteristics of the valuation personnel of intangible assets. The requirements have detailed regulations, and our country has neither unified asset evaluation standards nor specific asset evaluation regulations. Although the newly implemented specific accounting standards for "Intangible Assets" can provide a certain reference basis for the evaluation of intangible assets, it is relatively Given the complexity of intangible asset valuation, these provisions are clearly insufficient. The lack of specific evaluation implementation rules and quantitative standards creates conditions for artificial manipulation by corporate management authorities and also makes the loss of state-owned assets possible. The most important of the intangible assets valuation standards is the selection of intangible assets valuation methods. Due to the developed product factor markets in Western countries, they generally adopt the present value of income method or the current market price method. Due to the limitations of the objective environment, my country more often adopts the replacement cost method. However, the evaluation results of this method imply the logic that the increase in cost leads to the increase in value. There is relatively room for human manipulation, so it may not truly reflect the assets. actual market value. Therefore, we should actively cultivate and develop the product factor market and create the necessary objective environment for the application of the income present value method or the current market price method.

2. Standards for intangible asset evaluation agencies. At present, the main problems existing in my country's intangible assets evaluation agencies are that the state does not strictly review their qualifications; there are not many institutions that specialize in intangible assets evaluation; evaluation agencies are highly dependent on administrative power and lack the ability to survive independently.

Therefore, we should standardize the behavior of intangible asset evaluation agencies, promptly implement the hierarchical management system of asset evaluation institutions, and strictly review the qualifications of institutions engaged in intangible asset evaluation business; at the same time, we should actively promote institutional reform and encourage the establishment and establishment of partnerships and joint-stock institutions. Develop, cultivate and develop various special intangible asset evaluation institutions, such as intellectual property evaluation, trademark evaluation and other professional institutions.