Valuation and management of intangible assets in modern business is becoming more significant. Measurement of the value of intangible assets in this paper refers to the intangible resources for which the company did not have any procurement costs and, therefore, are not standardized in traditional accounting, and their use has the potential to create value on the market. Knowledge, as the basis of intellectual capital, becomes a basic strategic resource and a generator for improving the organization’s success. Therefore, determining the way of identifying and evaluating intellectual capital becomes the common practice of the most successful companies through indicators that have their quantitative or qualitative weight.
The interest of users of financial statements for the value of intellectual capital depends on their involvement in the overall business. Its value is basically the difference between high-efficiency companies and those that are less efficient. It becomes the starting point for business analysis of the company to reveal the hidden, untapped value of human capital and point to the need to make the business better. Possible methods of valuation of the total intangible assets of the company are presented, some of which are standardized, but most of the value, contained in intellectual capital, is not valued or recognized. It is proposed that, along with the standard financial statements, the total value of the intellectual capital to which the results are realized on the market.
ROBINS, DAVID B. (2012), “Recompense for fear: is forced Russian Roulette Just?” Libertarian Papers , Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 67-71; http://libertarianpapers.org/article/4-robins-recompense-for-fear/ ; http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2012/lp-4-1-4.pdf
ROTHBARD, MURRAY N. (1979), “Comment: The Myth of Efficiency”, in: Mario J. Rizzo (ed.), Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 91-96
ROTHBARD, MURRAY N. (1997), “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” in: The
Pedro Carvalho, Miguel A. Márquez and Montserrat Díaz
importance of convention service factors: Focusing on the differences in perception between convention planners and participants. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 3(4), 69–85
 Lloyd, P.J., & MacLaren, D. (2002). Measures of trade openness using CGE analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling, 24, 67–81
 Manski, C.F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136
 Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2011). They Arrive with New Information. Tourism Flows and Production Efficiency in the European
. C. (2008). The determinants of length of stay of tourists in the Azores. Tourism Economics, 14(1), 205-222.
 Efron, B. (1977). The efficiency of Cox’s likelihood function for censored data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(359), 557-565.
 Enger, A., Sandvik, K., & Kildal Iversen, E. (2015). Developing scenarios for the Norwegian travel industry 2025. Journal of Tourism Futures, 1(1), 6-18.
 Etzel, M. J., & Woodside, A. G. (1982). Segmenting vacation markets: The case of the distant and near-home travelers. Journal
Tourism: The Case of Cyprus. Tourism Management. 24(6): 687-697
 Shoemaker, S. & Lewis, R.C. (1999). Customer Loyalty: The Future of Hospitality Marketing. The Journal of Hospitality Management,18(4):345-346.
 Şahin, S. (2012). Intercultural Communication Efficiencies of Tourist Guides: The Perceptions of German, English and Russian Tourists. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Turkey: Balıkesir University, Graduate School of Social Sciences.
 Swarbrooke, J. & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer Behaviour in Tourism