Michael D. Moberly, Principal, Founder, kpstrat
Stress testing the value, i.e., sustainable competitive advantages, revenue generation capability, materiality cycle, and reputational risks to about-to-be-acquired and/or merged intangible assets is obliged to be considered ‘fiduciarily relevant’.
Minimizing or conveying dismissiveness of such a prudent practice or deferring same to institutional conventions, i.e., accounting, taxation, legal, etc., or mis-characterizing risks to business things intangible as merely inevitable and not subject to specific and defensive mitigation in advance, is respectfully, short-sighted.
The real time relevance of differentiating how, why, when, and where risk to particular-intangible assetsemerge and materialize at will, at keystroke speeds, and can cascade throughout an enterprise to undermine mission-essential asset value, competitiveness, and revenue generating capacity is also short-sighted.
The very real probability and asymmetry of business risks materializing in today’s irreversible and globally intertwined, predatorial, and increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant business operation environments is, if – when dismissed, short-sighted.
There is abundant and clear (open source) evidence that suggest, when business investors, leaders, and/or transaction – M&A advocates and mangers elect to forsake relevant and measurable risk mitigators to business things intangible correlates to transaction outcomes and ROI’s.
Readers who enjoy the various perspectives conveyed @ ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’, are respectfully invited to read more @ https://kpstrat.com
