How Customer Lists and Trademarks Help Companies Borrow
- By
- April 07, 2026
- CBR - Finance
As the US economy has shifted away from manufacturing toward technology and services, intangible assets have grown in importance. In 1975, just 17 percent of the value of S&P 500 companies came from intangible assets such as brands and trademarks, according to the intellectual property merchant bank Ocean Tomo. By the end of 2025, that number had risen to 92 percent.
Some economists argue that this shift could make it hard for companies to borrow. It’s one thing for a lender to accept production equipment as collateral for a loan, but how does that lender measure intangible assets offered up by new-economy companies such as ride-share operators and online retailers? Chicago Booth PhD candidate Bianca He explored this question and finds evidence that intangibles still support debt—just in a different way.
In addition to equipment, companies’ tangible assets include office buildings and warehouses, machinery, raw materials and goods, and trucks and planes. Intangible assets include brands and trademarks, but also customer relationship and loyalty programs, patents and copyrights, software systems, and franchise agreements. Many companies have both asset types. Take Amazon, which in addition to its warehouses, trucks, and raw materials has web services, patents, and its Prime membership program.
As crucial as these intangible assets are to Amazon’s corporate productivity, He writes, it’s difficult to use them as collateral because they’re hard to redeploy outside of the company. As a result, they’re likely to fetch a low value in liquidation, which matters a lot when borrowing.
In her research, He started by collecting data from nearly 4,000 acquisition transactions involving US public companies between 1995 and 2022. That acquirers are required to report detailed valuations of all assets of the target companies provided He with an unusual amount of visibility into the dollar values assigned to their intangibles. She then linked these valuations to changes in an acquirer’s debt around the time of each transaction.
He finds that acquiring companies used debt to finance their purchases of both tangible and intangible assets. Each dollar of tangible assets at the target company was associated with an increase of 44 cents in the acquiring company’s long-term debt. Each dollar of intangible assets was associated with an increase of 24 cents, a smaller but still-meaningful number, she writes.
More than collateral
The two asset types supported borrowing through different mechanisms, He finds. Tangible assets were more closely associated with asset-based borrowing, in which loans are secured by collateral that creditors could potentially liquidate if the borrower were to default. A key factor in this type of lending is redeployability, or whether an asset can be transferred to another user without losing much value. Intangible assets, by contrast, were mainly associated with cash flow–based borrowing. Because these assets are difficult to pledge or resell, lenders instead rely on the company’s ability to generate stable operating cash flows over time.
Intangibles that can reduce cash-flow volatility are especially valuable for debt-financing purposes, He argues. To this end, she makes a distinction between production-based intangibles (such as patents, software, trade secrets, and licenses), which help support a company’s operations and productivity, and demand-shifter intangibles (brands and trademarks, franchise agreements, domain names, and customer lists), which directly affect customer demand for a company’s products and services. The latter do more to stabilize cash flow, which reduces the likelihood and severity of financial distress, according to the study. She finds that a $1 increase in demand-shifter intangibles was associated with an increase of 45 cents in long-term debt, compared with a rise of 15 cents for production-based intangibles.
Using a court ruling that resulted in a quasi-natural experiment—as a consequence of the ruling, distressed companies were pushed toward formal bankruptcy rather than out-of-court restructuring—He then extended her analysis to look at how companies can borrow against assets that are difficult to pledge as collateral. The key, she says, is in the legal infrastructure that allows financially distressed companies to restructure and preserve their operations as a going concern, through Chapter 11 reorganization, for example. While physical assets can be sold to repay creditors, intangibles generate most of their value within a functioning business. The amount that intangible-intensive companies can borrow, then, depends on lenders’ confidence that the companies’ operations—and the cash flows produced—can be preserved during distress.
The study demonstrates that when the restructuring process becomes even slightly less reliable, as happened in the ruling she studied, it becomes harder for intangible-intensive companies to borrow. Formal bankruptcy tends to be slower, more disruptive, and more public, which can erode a company’s going-concern value.
As the value of intangibles continue to grow, policymakers should consider keeping up with the evolving economy by strengthening the legal framework that governs corporate distress and restructuring, He argues. Systems that resolve distress while preserving going-concern value would help protect companies and keep credit flowing to intangible-rich ones, particularly in the technology and service industries, that she sees as “driving modern innovation and growth.”
Bianca He, “Financing Intangibles,” Working paper, November 2025.
Your Privacy
We want to demonstrate our commitment to your privacy. Please review Chicago Booth's privacy notice, which provides information explaining how and why we collect particular information when you visit our website.