In today's scvr Paul mentioned the high value of intangible assets on NCC's balance sheet, giving a negative tangible asset value which he describes as a deal breaker. In the past I have usually taken a similar view but I'm starting to question that. Recently I was reading through Fundsmith's owners manual in which they state that although it may seem counter intuitive they seek to buy businesses which do not rely on tangible assets. They prefer businesses with intangibles that can be hard to replicate, such as brand names, patents etc.

I can totally see the logic of this and it will change the way I assess certain companies. But I'm curious to know what others think about this...

Finish reading with a 14 day trial

or Unlock with your email

Already have an account?
Login here