Accounting for brands——Untouchable intangibles

　　品牌的价值：无法触摸的无形资产

　　Sometimes you see brands on the balance-sheet, sometimes you don't

　　一些企业把品牌价值列入资产负债表，而另一些企业却没有这样做

　　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.

　　据Interbrand品牌咨询公司估计， 仅“可口可乐”这个品牌就价值792亿美元。可口可乐为每年的圣诞节增添了无穷的乐趣，这样看来Interbrand的估价并不过分。然而，可口可乐公司的资产负债表中并没有出现如此巨额的品牌估价，公司会计表示，该公司的商标价值仅为67亿。

　　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.

　　原因是美国和国际会计法规都不承认企业自创的品牌以及其他无形资产的价值。一些准备上市的企业希望改变这种状况。Roger Sinclair指出，MASB(上市会计准则理事会，美国的一个制定上市标准的机构)的这项规定是自相矛盾的：品牌的价值虽然在它产生的时候是隐性的，但是当它出售时就会变成可衡量的显性价值。

　　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.

　　企业并购中有一项特殊的规定，即允许企业对品牌进行估价出售。在2005年保洁的并购案中，保洁花了570亿美元收购了吉列剃须刀，其中仅仅是吉列这个品牌的价值就有240亿。然而，现在吉列的价值只会不断下降。因为”损耗”，保洁必须对吉列进行核算，但是它的估价绝不会有任何增长，即使Interbrand表明吉列的价值在去年增长了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认为，投资者有权知道企业品牌的价值，因为这密切关乎着一个企业的未来。这种对品牌价值的矛盾的规定似乎认为，品牌价值就像光电一样可以瞬间穿梭于两个地方。

　　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.

　　会计师似乎很喜欢这种量化品牌价值的方式。国际会计标准理事会认为:品牌价值可能会有严重偏差。规则制定者担心审计们很容易察觉到品牌价值的提升，却很难发现它的下滑。品牌都是独一无二的，所以很难用数据衡量它们的市值。普华永道的Hilary Eastman疑问道:“怎样将品牌和创造销量的顾客、生产产品的技术分开呢?”

　　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.

　　澳大利亚曾经尝试将自创品牌的价值计入会计账目，但是为了与国际标准接轨，于2005年取消了这种无形资产计价方式。澳大利亚会计标准理事会的Angus Thomson认为：“量化自创品牌价值使得大家对品牌更加关注，并且披露了更多的市场信息。”他希望这种做法可以重新实行，但他也认为这种可能性不大。如果资产是无形的，那些锱铢必较的会计师们将不会参与这类资产的核算。

　　相关推荐：

　　双语阅读 脱欧进程 "贵族式跳跃"(2)

　　双语阅读 脱欧进程 "贵族式跳跃"(1)

　　双语阅读 无线联网成未来汽车发展方向