Interviews

Three Questions with David Haigh: The Rising Value of Intangible Assets

Published: November 4, 2026

Brand Finance’s Global Intangible Finance Tracker (GIFT™) is among the most extensive annual studies of corporate intangible value, analyzing tens of thousands of listed companies worldwide.

Its recurring message is that brands, patents, data, and relationships now represent the majority of enterprise value, yet most of that value never appears on a balance sheet.

David Haigh, Brand Finance (United Kingdom)

The 2025 edition put global intangible value at a record US $97.6 trillion, with an estimated 83 percent undisclosed. GIFT™ 2026 arrives as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) continues its review of IAS 38, the accounting standard governing how intangible assets are recognized and reported.

Brand Finance will officially launch the report next week, followed by an exclusive CFO roundtable taking place at the Brand Exchange in London on Monday, November 16. Participants will explore the recognition and financial value of brands and other intangible assets.

The INTA Bulletin spoke with Brand Finance’s Chairman and CEO, David Haigh, about the new findings and what they mean for brand owners and intellectual property (IP) professionals.

Global intangible value hit a record in each of the last two editions. What does GIFT™ 2026 show, and is that value spreading across sectors and markets or concentrating further among a small group of companies?
GIFT 2026 puts global intangible value at approximately US $128 trillion, up 32 percent from the previous year and equivalent to around 70 percent of global enterprise value. Perhaps more significantly, approximately 87 percent of that value remains undisclosed on corporate balance sheets.

The growth is not evenly distributed. Technology-intensive sectors continue to account for a substantial proportion of intangible value, with semiconductors particularly notable this year. The sector’s intangible value has increased by approximately 90 percent, reaching US $18.3 trillion, reflecting the extraordinary growth in businesses supporting artificial intelligence and advanced computing.

I think this raises an interesting question about concentration. Intangible value is becoming increasingly important across the global economy, but some of the most significant increases are concentrated in businesses with particular technological capabilities, intellectual property, and competitive advantages.

For me, the important distinction is between the overall growth in intangible value and how that value is distributed. Both matter when considering the sustainability of corporate valuations and the risks associated with them.

GIFT™ measures all intangibles together: brands, patents, contracts, relationships, and data. How much of that value can be traced to trademarks and brands specifically? And what separates companies that turn their brand portfolios into measurable enterprise value from those that don’t?
One important distinction is that GIFT measures the aggregate value of intangible assets, rather than attributing the entire amount to particular asset classes. We therefore shouldn’t assume that the US $128 trillion represents brand value, or that it can be reliably divided between brands, patents, customer relationships, and other intangibles without further analysis.

That said, brands can be among the most commercially significant assets a business holds. Their value comes from their ability to influence customer behavior and generate economic benefits, whether through pricing power, customer loyalty, repeat purchases, or reduced customer acquisition costs.

The businesses that extract the greatest value from their brands tend to be those that manage them as commercial assets rather than simply marketing identities.

For IP professionals, the distinction between legal protection and economic value is particularly important. A registered trademark establishes legal rights, but its financial value depends on the economic benefits those rights help the business generate.

Ultimately, the question isn’t simply whether a business owns a valuable trademark portfolio, but how effectively that portfolio contributes to future cash flows, growth, and risk.

The businesses that extract the greatest value from their brands tend to be those that manage them as commercial assets rather than simply marketing identities.

The IASB is reviewing IAS 38 but remains in the research phase, and wholesale recognition of internally generated brands looks unlikely soon. Until reporting catches up, what should companies, investors, and IP professionals do differently to account for value that doesn’t appear on the balance sheet?
I think there’s a fundamental inconsistency in the current accounting framework. A brand developed internally may have considerable economic value but remain unrecognized on the balance sheet, whereas an economically similar brand acquired through a business combination can be recognized at fair value. The underlying asset has not changed, simply the way in which it was acquired.

Our view is that internally generated intangible assets should be recognized where they can be reliably identified and measured. Established valuation techniques are already used to value acquired brands, technology, and customer relationships for financial reporting purposes. There is a strong argument for applying those same principles more consistently.

In the meantime, companies should be doing more to identify, measure, and manage their intangible assets while providing greater transparency around investment in brands, innovation, and customer relationships.

For investors and IP professionals, the important point is that the absence of an asset from the balance sheet doesn’t mean it has no economic value.

Ultimately, financial reporting should better reflect how modern businesses create value. Greater disclosure would be a useful first step, but I don’t think it should be the end of the conversation.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the persons being interviewed and do not purport to reflect the views of INTA or its members.