Deploying intangible asset specific risk mitigators.
Archives for February 2017
It’s ironic that it’s an economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value and sources of revenue derive from company’s IA’s (intangible assets), while intangibles remain the ‘introverts’ of every businesses suite of asset’s.
The ‘contributory value’ methodology for IA’s, is not quantitative in the conventional sense, i.e., no (one-size-fits-all) mathematical formula used to calculate and ultimately assign dollar value (ranges) to IA’s. Instead, this methodology reveals (graphically) how, where, when, and which IA’s affect (business) value, competitiveness, and revenue, and therefore, deliver – possess ‘contributory value’.
Avoid making arbitrary assumptions about when, where, how, and why particular IA’s are in play and at risk, e.g., their fragility, stability, defensibility, liquidity, value, and competitive advantages, if-when (the assets are) compromised.
The purpose (intent, objective) for pre – post IA-specific due diligence is to ensure the value, revenue generation capabilities, competitive advantages, and reputation, etc., produced by the IA’s in play, are, and will remain fully intact.
I find the most significant variable to intangible asset risk management is learning whether business leaders conceive of risk (exposure) in threshold or tolerance contexts. Frequently, there is far more attention paid to the cost of premiums and total dollar limits than to the occurrence of a specific adverse event.