A comparative analysis of intangible assets in LSE- and NGX-listed companies

dc.contributor.authorSeedat, Talhah
dc.contributor.supervisorVan Zijl, Wayne
dc.contributor.supervisorBurnham, Kayleigh
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-03T09:46:05Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.descriptionA research report submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Commerce, in the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, School of Accountancy, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2025
dc.description.abstractIntangible assets (IAs) are increasingly important in modern business. Accordingly, their accounting treatment and disclosure are equally important. Despite this, the accounting standard dealing with IAs has not been substantively revised in decades. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) acknowledges this deficiency and is currently working on a project to comprehensively review IA accounting. This thesis contributes to the IASB’s project by examining the disclosure, recognition, and measurement of IAs among companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NGX) in 2013 and 2023. The study explores the disparities in IA practices between developed and developing economies, focusing on recognised IAs (RIAs) and unrecognised IAs (UIAs). In doing so, the study provides empirical evidence about the extent, type and disclosure of RIAs and UIAs in a developed and developing economy. The thesis uses a quantitative content analysis of LSE and NGX companies’ 2013 and 2023 financial statements. Findings reveal that both LSE- and NGX-listed companies exclusively use the cost model for IA measurement, suggesting that the restrictions imposed by IAS 38 before the revaluation model can be adopted is very limiting. LSE-listed companies exhibit a more structured and compliance- driven approach to IA reporting, with goodwill being the most frequently disclosed RIA. In contrast, NGX-listed companies disclose fewer RIAs but report UIAs more extensively, particularly in relation to brand-building expenditures. This appears to be driven by regulatory challenges and a lack of expertise in RIAs recognition. The research recommends that the IASB reduce the restrictions on the use of the revaluation model for IAs. In addition, it should consider adopting standardised IA classifications and mandate the disclosure of useful UIAs. Finally, industry-specific guidance and tools for emerging economies would be helpful to improve IA reporting.
dc.description.submitterMM2026
dc.facultyFaculty of Commerce, Law and Management
dc.identifier.citationSeedat, Talhah . (2025). A comparative analysis of intangible assets in LSE- and NGX-listed companies [Master’s dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg]. WIReDSpace. https://hdl.handle.net/10539/49403
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/49403
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
dc.rights© 2025 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
dc.rights.holderUniversity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
dc.schoolSchool of Accountancy
dc.subjectUCTD
dc.subjectIntangible assets
dc.subjectRevaluation model
dc.subjectUnrecognised intangible assets
dc.subjectRecognised intangible assets
dc.subjectMarket-to-Book value ratio
dc.subject.primarysdgSDG-8: Decent work and economic growth
dc.subject.secondarysdgSDG-8: Decent work and economic growth
dc.titleA comparative analysis of intangible assets in LSE- and NGX-listed companies
dc.typeDissertation

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Seedat_comparative_2025.pdf
Size:
829.69 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.43 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: