評論
打印
Accounting for brands
品牌的價值
Untouchable intangibles
無法觸摸的無形資產(chǎn)
Sometimes you see brands on the balance-sheet, sometimes you don't
一些企業(yè)把品牌價值列入資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表，而另一些企業(yè)卻沒有這樣做
COCA-COLA is worth 79.2 billion, according to Interbrand, a consultant. That does not seem excessive for the brand responsible for making Santa Claus look so jolly. But neither that number nor anything close to it appears on the company's balance-sheet. “Trademarks with indefinite lives”are worth just 6.7 billion, say the company's accounts.
據(jù)Interbrand品牌咨詢公司估計(jì)， 僅“可口可樂”這個品牌就價值792億美元。可口可樂為每年的圣誕節(jié)增添了無窮的樂趣，這樣看來Interbrand的估價并不過分。然而，可口可樂公司的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表中并沒有出現(xiàn)如此巨額的品牌估價，公司會計(jì)表示，該公司的商標(biāo)價值僅為67億。
The reason is that both American and international accounting rules prohibit companies from recognising brands and many other “intangible” assets (such as customer lists) if they have created them themselves. Some would like to change that. Roger Sinclair, who advises the MASB, an American body that sets marketing standards, points out that rules are inconsistent. The value of a brand—invisible when internally generated—is revealed when another company buys it.
原因是美國和國際會計(jì)法規(guī)都不承認(rèn)企業(yè)自創(chuàng)的品牌以及其他無形資產(chǎn)的價值。一些準(zhǔn)備上市的企業(yè)希望改變這種狀況。Roger Sinclair指出，MASB(上市會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會，美國的一個制定上市標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的機(jī)構(gòu))的這項(xiàng)規(guī)定是自相矛盾的：品牌的價值雖然在它產(chǎn)生的時候是隱性的，但是當(dāng)它出售時就會變成可衡量的顯性價值。
That is because a different rule applies to acquisitions. In 2005 Procter & Gamble, a consumer-goods company, paid 57 billion for the Gillette razor company. The brand alone, P&G reckoned, was worth 24 billion. Oddly, Gillette's value can now only go down. P&G must test it for “impairment” but cannot acknowledge any increase, though Interbrand says Gillette's value rose 1% last year.
企業(yè)并購中有一項(xiàng)特殊的規(guī)定，即允許企業(yè)對品牌進(jìn)行估價出售。在2005年保潔的并購案中，保潔花了570億美元收購了吉列剃須刀，其中僅僅是吉列這個品牌的價值就有240億。然而，現(xiàn)在吉列的價值只會不斷下降。因?yàn)椤睋p耗”，保潔必須對吉列進(jìn)行核算，但是它的估價絕不會有任何增長，即使Interbrand表明吉列的價值在去年增長了1%。
Investors have a right to know how much brands are worth because so much of a firm's future depends on them, Mr Sinclair argues. The conflicting standards treat brands rather as if they were electrons that can be in two places at once.
Sinclair認(rèn)為，投資者有權(quán)知道企業(yè)品牌的價值，因?yàn)檫@密切關(guān)乎著一個企業(yè)的未來。這種對品牌價值的矛盾的規(guī)定似乎認(rèn)為，品牌價值就像光電一樣可以瞬間穿梭于兩個地方。
Accountants seem content to live with such quantum weirdness. Brand values can “swing wildly”, says Alan Teixeira of the International Accounting Standards Board. Standard-setters worry that auditors would be quick to recognise rises but slow to acknowledge declines. Brands are unique, so it is hard to figure out what their market value is. “How do you separate a brand from customers that generate the sales or the know-how that enables the product to be made?” wonders Hilary Eastman of PwC, an accounting firm.
會計(jì)師似乎很喜歡這種量化品牌價值的方式。國際會計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)理事會認(rèn)為:品牌價值可能會有嚴(yán)重偏差。規(guī)則制定者擔(dān)心審計(jì)們很容易察覺到品牌價值的提升，卻很難發(fā)現(xiàn)它的下滑。品牌都是獨(dú)一無二的，所以很難用數(shù)據(jù)衡量它們的市值。普華永道的Hilary Eastman疑問道:“怎樣將品牌和創(chuàng)造銷量的顧客、生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)品的技術(shù)分開呢？”
Australia used to account for internally generated brands but gave it up in 2005 to align itself with international standards. It “put much more focus on brands” and gave markets extra information, says Angus Thomson of the Australian Accounting Standards Board. He would like to see the practice restored but is not hopeful. If it's intangible, bean-counters won't touch it.
澳大利亞曾經(jīng)嘗試將自創(chuàng)品牌的價值計(jì)入會計(jì)賬目，但是為了與國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)接軌，于2005年取消了這種無形資產(chǎn)計(jì)價方式。澳大利亞會計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)理事會的Angus Thomson認(rèn)為：“量化自創(chuàng)品牌價值使得大家對品牌更加關(guān)注，并且披露了更多的市場信息。”他希望這種做法可以重新實(shí)行，但他也認(rèn)為這種可能性不大。如果資產(chǎn)是無形的，那些錙銖必較的會計(jì)師們將不會參與這類資產(chǎn)的核算。
