Purpuse- In this study, the valuation provisions of intangible assets within the scope of TAS-38, BOBI-FRS Section 14, KUMI-FRS Section 12, IVS-210 were compared. Methodology- Content analysis method was used as a method in this study. Findings-As a result of the examination, it has been seen that BOBI FRS Section 14 and KUMI FRS Section 12 are largely compatible with the valuation of intangible assets, and they have a more cost-based approach in order to facilitate the businesses within the scope of these standard sets. In TAS 38, on the other hand, it has been determined that the situations requiring the determination of "Fair Value" are more than the others. In addition to these standards, the IVS 210 standard, which has additional provisions regarding intangible assets from the standards published by the IVSC “International Valuation Standards Council”, is also discussed in the study. It has been understood that “Market approach”, “Income approach” and “Cost approach” can be applied in determining the fair value of intangible assets within the framework of IVS 210. However, it has been observed that, depending on the structure of the intangible asset, the application of the "Market approach" and "Income approach" is primarily desired, while the cost approach is recommended to be applied in mandatory situations. Conclusion-As a result of the research, it has been seen that there are some differences between TMS38, BOBI FRS Section 14 and KÜMİ FRS Section 12. It has been determined that there are no valuation provisions in IDS 210, and the principles supporting the valuation are discussed. Keywords: Intangible assets, TMS-38, BOBI-FRS Section 14, KUMI-FRS Section 12, IVS-210 JEL Codes: M40,M41

Çalışmanın amacı G20 ülkeleri arasından seçilen 8 ülkenin borsalarında faaliyet gösteren şirketlerin nakit akış profillerinin ülkelere, sektörlere ve yıllara göre karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi ve böylelikle yaygın işletme tiplerinin tespit edilmesidir. Bu amaçla 5091 şirketin 2012-2021 yıllarındaki nakit akış tablolarında 50.910 gözlem incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda incelenen ülkelerde genel olarak yıllar itibariyle en sık görülen profilin Model 6 (Giriş/Genç işletme) ve en az görülen profilin Model 1 (Durgun İşletme) olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu genel görünümden büyük oranda sapma gösteren ülkelerin ise İngiltere ve Türkiye olduğu belirlenmiştir. Türkiye ve İngiltere’de farklı olarak en sık görülen profilin Model 2 (Başarılı İşletme) olduğu tespit edilmiştir.