I disagree with both the premise and the conclusions. Just look at the Share of GDP chart comparing services, manufacturing and government. Services has been a larger part of the US economy since the late 40's, so 'intangibles' have already been included in valuations, rather than just manufacturing output. Second, if 'intangibles' can't be defined precisely, they can't be measured precisely. If they can't be measured precisely then no basis exists to develop mathematical models that include them. This is hocus-pocus on the hunt for legitimacy. Third, and an extension of my preceding points, intangibles MUST have some real material value which are inherent in products or services, otherwise an Enron methodology exists, which may seem reasonable, but has no basis in the real world, real accounting and real company valuations.