Main Reason BAL Is Cactus!, page-50

Para 63 states that:
....
Internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and items similar in substance shall not be recognised as intangible assets.

However, companies such as Fairfax and Newshave their mastheads and tradenames valued and included in the Balance Sheet. In FXJ's case, the $241M F16 masthead value (refer, note 9, AR16) is included as part of its Intangible Assets entry in the Balance Sheet. Other contributing items here include goodwill, radio licences, software and customer relationships (where, for example, acquired in a business combination).

From BAL's perspective however, in order for the brands to have any recognisable value in this regard, the hurdle of [63] would need to be addressed by reference to [52] which states:
.....
To assess whether an internally generated intangible asset meets the criteria for recognition, an entity classifies the generation of the asset into:
(a) a research phase; and
(b) a development phase.

[59] then gives some practical guidance on what to look for, in this regard, including:
....
59 Examples of development activities are:
(a) the design, construction and testing of pre-production or pre-use prototypes and models;
(b) the design of tools, jigs, moulds and dies involving new technology;
(c) the design, construction and operation of a pilot plant that is not of a scale economically feasible for commercial production; and
(d) the design, construction and testing of a chosen alternative for new or improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems or services.

(d) is the most likely or relevant from a BAL perspective.

That said, however, it all then comes back to the following at [12] regarding the ability to IDENTIFY
...
An asset is identifiable if it either:
(a) is separable, i.e. is capable of being separated or divided from the entity and sold, transferred, licensed, rented or exchanged, either individually or together with a related contract, identifiable asset or liability, regardless of whether the entity intends to do so; or
(b) arises from contractual or other legal rights, regardless of whether those rights are transferable or separable from the entity or from other rights and obligations.

And, to the following at [21}:
....
An intangible asset shall be recognised if, and only if:
(a) it is probable that the expected future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the entity; and
(b) the cost of the asset can be measured reliably.

So, putting [12], together with [21], [52], [59] and [63] makes it quite hard to see how, what or where BAL could recognise anything from its own branding perspective (remembering, for example, that initially, such items would be recognised at cost).

Considered in another way, even if BAL's branding had been recognised in some way way, from a balance sheet perspective, the announcements last week would also then have either stated or foreshadowed a very significant writedown in those brand values.

Regardless of which way in which you view it, relevant balance sheet values can only be sustained if they can be sold, exchanged or processed at the stated values (ie: cash, receivables, inventory), valued according to set, stable or established criteria (ie: listed investments, real estate, PPEQ, biological assets, etc), or valued according to relative business performance, function, sustainability and /or operation (ie: goodwill, intangible assets linked to overall business and .or market performance).

Considered on these fronts, any intangible asset values that BAL might well have carried before last week (for arguments sake) would well and truly have been knocked around given last week's market update.

So, yes, the banks might well be interested but whatever that interest is now was considerably diminished following last week's market update.