Comparison analysis of enterprise intangible assets structure in Ukraine and over the world

One of the problems of Ukrainian enterprises at the present stage of economic development is the optimization the volume and structure of their assets through a tendency of their value underestimation. Only a small part of the intangible assets are displayed now on the balance of Ukrainian enterprises as intangible assets. This significantly reduces the competitiveness of enterprises at both the local and global markets. And due to that at M & A agreements or the procedure of IPO Ukrainian companies are undervalued, and they are considerably weaker and cheaper compared with foreign ones.The aim of the article. The aim of the article is to compare the structure of intangible assets, which are recognized in the financial statements of different countries, and to develop proposals on for intangible assets types differing in their structure on the Ukrainian enterprises.The results of the analysis. World practice shows quite different structure of intangible assets in different countries of the world. It was defined, that it is impossible to identify any one dominant element in the structure of intangible assets of all countries. Although the membership of investigated countries of Europe in a single economic organization - the European Union, and commonality of economic laws and the use of single currency euro by Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, it should be noted that the intangible assets structure in each country is different, with different elements, which occupy the largest share.As the significant discrepancies in official data acquires, which are determined in the different countries, an attempt was made to summarize the data, if only to bring them into a single structure. Due to it was made the simplification, according to which all components of the intangible assets of these countries have been grouped for the three categories, which are often defined in the financial statements: brand, information resources and people capital.It is determined the share benefits of human capital in the structure of intangible assets of European countries (UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands) or brand (Spain, Italy), instead of it in the United States and especially in Japan the information resources significantly prevail over the share.But in Sweden and the Netherlands, the picture is more varied, taking into consideration the more extensive reporting system of intangible assets, and more kinds of intangible assets, which are defined in these countries.Unfortunately, according to statistical reports in Ukraine there are no records of intangible assets structure (in contrast to the structure of basic or current assets) at the macro level. A rough estimation can be obtained only at the cost structure of innovations in the economy. Such a structure is not entirely responsible with foreign ones due to the fact that the costs of research and development works with the software (which are intangible), also includes the cost of material goods acquisition (machinery, equipmentetc.). This significantly increases the share of this particular part of the cost for research and development work at the enterprises in Ukraine. However, it is clear that for Ukraine the components of the information resources of enterprises are dominated. The underestimating of brand enterprises problem looks particularly acute in this study for the enterprises of Ukraine. From this it arises the need for further development of methods to increase the attractiveness of Ukrainian enterprises through the development of their brand.Conclusions and directions of further researches.The expansion of existing and, most importantly, recorded in the structure of the balance sheet types intangible assets will allow not only to increase to the companies of Ukraine their own value (that is important in M & A and IPO transactions), but also to find new sources of own funds (due to depreciation of more intangible assets types).